Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-24 Public Comment - W. Shepard - GAR Feedback on Bozeman's UDCFrom:Will Shepard To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]GAR Feedback on Bozeman"s UDC Date:Tuesday, September 17, 2024 9:35:51 AM Attachments:Outlook-cfn5c5ma.png Outlook-e32xy33r.png Outlook-ddka5xry.png Outlook-obcrhw55.png GAR Feedback on Bozeman"s UDC .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. Hi, Please see the attached PDF for GAR's public comments. Thanks, Will Will Shepard Government Affairs Director Gallatin Association of REALTORS® 4020 Valley Commons Drive Unit. 1 (406) 585-0033 EXT. 1006 will@gallatinrealtors.com https://gallatinrealtors.com/ 4020 Valley Commons Dr., Bozeman, MT 59718 Table of Contents Introduction ………………………..……………….. p. 2 Affordable Housing ……………………………….. p. 3-4 Residential & Commercial Zoning ……………. p. 4 Densiflcation ……………………………………….. p. 5 Parking ………………………………………….…….. p. 6-7 Height Limits & Setbacks ………………...…….. p. 7 Zone Map Amendments ………………..……….. p. 7-8 Historic Neighborhoods & NCOD …………….. p. 8-9 Transportation ……………………………………... p. 9 Rules of Interpretation ….……………………….. p. 10 Form-Based Code ………………..……………….. p. 10-11 Covenants & HOAs ……………………………….. p. 11 Planned Development Zones ………………….. p. 12-14 Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 2 Introduction. The Gallatin Association of REALTORS® (GAR) sees flrsthand that this community is changing and growing, and will continue to do so for years to come. GAR commends the city commission, staff, advisory boards, and the entire community for its diligent work in crafting the Unifled Development Code. Bozeman is required to follow and implement the standards laid out in SB 382, Montana Land Use Planning Act. In addition to SB 382’s requirements, the city has voluntarily added regulations to the written code. The code update is intended to manage Bozeman’s growth—in tandem with city plans and goals— through zoning and development regulation, building permitting, and public policies. This code serves as a living, working document to be updated as needed. The UDC provides a comprehensive set of regulations for development, zoning, and subdivisions – when analyzed as intended and thoughtfully enacted – which set forth a healthy vision for the Bozeman area for the future. There are sections that are excellent and should remain as written and also sections that should be revisited and reworked to properly refiect Bozeman and its future. Resistance to change and reluctance to flnd creative solutions to collective community issues will forge a future for Bozeman that is expensive, unsustainable, and undesirable. The framework and guiding principles in this written code need to be rigid, yet fiexible enough to accommodate necessary changes—at the behest of the community, state mandates, or otherwise—without total revision or reinvention of the UDC or its process. GAR feels strongly that a well-written code promotes access to homeownership, embraces and provides protection of private property rights, creates and bolsters affordable and attainable housing, lays the groundwork for sensitive development and inflll, values public and open lands, and a thoughtful vision for the future. If all parties walk away from a compromise upset, that is the mark of success. The UDC should be treated in this way – so long as the next 25 years of Bozeman are prioritized and planned for effectively. The flnal, adopted version must be readily, easily, and widely applicable to the Bozeman area for the foreseeable future. The suggestions and rationales for and against speciflc sections within the UDC are a synthesis of real estate knowledge and the diverse political, economic, and socioeconomic backgrounds of GAR’s membership. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 3 Affordable Housing. The Gallatin Association of REALTORS® encourages Bozeman to utilize all available options to diversify Bozeman’s housing market, increase affordability, and improve accessibility. Getting more affordable housing on the market is paramount to the health, longevity, and sustainability of Bozeman. It is important to note that focusing solely on affordable housing can lead to a reduction in housing stock variety. The UDC does not set policy, but it does set the guidelines and framework for policy to be created. As such, GAR believes that the principles within the affordable housing sections can be improved with more attention to and diversity of the affordable housing mandates and incentives. These measures may be enhanced by expediting the permit processes for projects that include a signiflcant proportion of affordable units or tax breaks (to be enacted in regulatory policy). Additionally, the code could beneflt from mechanisms that ensure the long-term affordability of housing. GAR recognizes that a purely market-driven approach may not cater adequately to the needs of lower-income residents. Affordable Housing is an important topic throughout the Development code – outlined at length in numerous divisions. Section(s) 38.340.010-.060 speciflcally addresses affordable housing via zoning allowances, incentives, and AMI—to a small degree. This “Division” demonstrates that the city is prioritizing affordable rentals and sales in high-density residential zones by utilizing mixed- use developments. An emphasis is correspondingly placed on leveraging multi-unit dwellings, townhouses, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as primary ways to invigorate the subsidization and diversiflcation of Bozeman’s housing stock. This is excellent, and if policy refiects this section, it will lessen the burden placed on affordable housing policy and infrastructure this section is asked to carry. Further emphasis should be placed on mixed-income developments than is currently addressed in the Development Code. Mixed-income developments can increase affordable housing availability. When affordable housing strategy combines regulatory reforms – such as fiexible AMI targets, code- based incentives, density, deed restrictions temporary and permanent, fee waivers or deferrals, reduction in upfront costs, sensitive upzoning, or land banking – in target growth areas, a wide array of housing options will result. Additionally, if the use of public-private partnerships is encouraged in the UDC, Bozeman’s housing affordability and accessibility will continue to develop. Code that encourages transparency, development incentives, density, sensitive inflll, and mixed- income housing will produce a mix of housing correctly suited for and representative of the community’s income levels. Without incentives and reasonable expectations, guidelines, or parameters for developers and the community to understand, the housing stock will remain the same. Writing the framework for, alongside a stand-alone AHO, deep and shallow code-based incentives are necessary steps to getting affordable units on the market. If the city commits to an AHO, or an AHO guiding policy, that is sensitive to general community needs and implements a 60-120% AMI range with a fiexible 30% lower safety net and 30% high ceiling, GAR supports the affordability in the UDC. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 4 Bozeman has few tools to address the issues outlined above. Nonetheless, the limited scope of the affordable housing sections in this UDC may not go far enough to counter the high-end tailored, market-driven housing costs. There will always be a risk that affordable units revert to market rate under this current code. If the city incorporates legal and structurally sound portions of inclusionary zoning – AMI change, code incentives, temporary and permanent deed restrictions, high growth area targeted upzoning, and land banking – with government subsidization, and public-private partnerships, GAR believes Bozeman’s housing stock variety, affordability, and availability will improve. Utilizing this policy and model mix will promote more adequate housing for Bozeman’s wide range of incomes. Following GAR suggestions and leveraging the tools in the UDC, a fiood of below-market-rate units will effectively reset the housing market for the foreseeable future. Residential & Commercial Zones. GAR supports the rights of homeowners to do as they see flt with their private property within their legal parameters. We believe that individual homeowners in Bozeman city limits should be able to do as they wish with the property they own or are under contract to purchase. Transparent, balanced written code is key to maintaining a healthy relationship between property owners and the city so that each party’s expectations are able to be met, rational, and understood. Residential zoning regulations should support a diverse set and a variety of housing types that fulflll the needs of the socioeconomic spectrum. Commercial zoning must be fiexible to encourage scalable, mixed-use, and adaptable buildings. As written, the residential code separates low, medium, and high housing types, noted as R-A, R-B, and R-C, with speciflc standards that refiect the city’s commitment to fulfllling each housing type needed in the community. R-A, R-B, and R-C range from single-family to multi-unit buildings – a scalable outline the city can use to adapt to changing housing needs. Commercial zoning (B-1, B-2, B-3, and more) utilizes this same outline model – one that is tailored to the speciflc areas of Bozeman and its assortment of commercial activity. There is tremendous value in these new, looser zoning designations. Residential, Commercial and Mixed-use, Industrial, and Special Districts are sufficient for laying the future of Bozeman out such that these property owners can utilize their property as they feel flt. GAR would like to see the city keep the R-A, R-B, R-C, lot widths, building coverage area, minimum density, and massing deflnitions largely as written. These parameters in residential zoning designations will allow for various housing forms. The commercial and mixed-use zoning categories and regulations for density, coverage, streetscapes, transitions, entrances, and fioor heights are all in equally good standing in GAR’s understanding of the UDC. In general, no signiflcant changes to residential and commercial zoning deflnitions need to be made further than the tweaks already done in the UDC. If the city incorporates any portions related to this topic in use under the current zoning code, we support that as well. To be clear, ensuring fiexibility in zoning which supports a variety of housing and building types, densiflcation, and inflll is important to maintain in all residential and commercial zoning designations. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 5 Densification. GAR believes that sensitive density and inflll are important to maintaining our vibrant economic sectors and workforce, as well as providing for a fiood of housing units that will allow more people to become homeowners – all of which contribute to the sustainability of this community. We want to see the continuation of sustainable growth through efficient uses of land. We advocate for densiflcation. Bozeman is growing. If zoning regulations do not adapt and grow with the population, the city will see massive setbacks. Denser development, with acknowledgment of the Growth Policy, Housing Action Plan, and Community Plan – in urban centers, transit corridors, and target growth areas – will improve sustainable growth and land use. However, restrictions on density and inflll will contribute only to sprawl and further exacerbate an affordability “crisis” this community is seeing. Alternatives. We encourage the city to explore growth phasing as a potential way to improve and expand upon the city’s density and inflll toolbelt. A growth phasing program can match new developments with the availability of capital facilities. It can also do the reverse – tying capital facilities to target growth areas or those parcels most suitable for development. That said, a growth phasing program can increase land prices and development costs, and therefore become an exclusionary tool. Another idea is expanding the use of a Special Assessment District (SAD). When landowners within a district decide how infrastructure for development is to be flnanced and constructed, densiflcation becomes less regulatory in nature. Implemented properly, SADs allow for cooperative efforts and become mutually beneflcial. To the extent that a community has identifled certain land with characteristics such as wetlands or other constraints on development, SADs may adopt transferable development rights (TDR) as a market-based incentive program for owners to “retire” any development rights they may have in those lands and, in exchange for compensation, transfer those rights to lands more desirable for development. SADs (and TDRs) are useful tools for community members to recognize and adapt to changes without the city requiring or mandating those adaptations. We caution against establishing a moratorium, in any manner. Typically, moratoriums result in the temporary downzoning of property and the taking of property(ies). Related to densiflcation are zone edge transitions. We recommend smooth transitions between the different zoning types so that urban, suburban, rural, and agricultural landscapes are integrated well. The code provides adequate ways of implementing transitions between land uses and mitigating the impacts of different uses. For example, the buffer zones between industrial and residential areas reduce potential confiicts and safeguard compatibility. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 6 Parking. Parking is an important division of the UDC, discussed in various sections and speciflcally, in chapter 38.530. The code maintains parking requirements and sets minimums for each zoning designation. While there is fiexibility – notably, in the downtown area where minimums are reduced – these requirements disincentivize other modes of transit and place constraints on proposed developments, of any kind. GAR believes that the parking minimums in residential (mainly, R-A) are adequate and meet the intent of city plans and goals. However, parking minimums are restrictive, can artiflcially raise the value of a home or property, and provide signiflcant hurdles for building new homes. GAR would prefer, for the aforementioned and below reasons, that parking minimums are not a requirement codifled in the zoning code. GAR argues that the free market will dictate the amount of parking attached to housing, where appropriate, or as determined by the owner or developer. Additionally, parking minimums increase undeveloped land use, whereas no, or reduced, parking minimums can do the opposite. Throughout the UDC, parking requirements are generally the same for all housing, including affordable housing. When parking minimums are included in affordable housing projects, they can monopolize the project in demonstrably negative ways – speciflcally, by artiflcially increasing development costs. GAR encourages parking to be separate from housing altogether. Parking bundled with rentals, for example, can infiate rents, but when separated, affordability can improve. Furthermore, when residents in a development can choose whether to lease parking spaces depending on their needs, those without cars won’t bear the burden of that development cost. Those who have a personal vehicle can then choose whether to subsidize the development cost by leasing a parking space. Requiring any amount of parking for housing units dedicated for rentals can infiate costs passed to the renter. The free market will dictate whether parking spaces are included in new housing units. For those new units where parking is not included, multi-modal transit must be readily accessible. When and where parking regulations do not include parking maximums, there is nothing to prevent developers from continuing to overpark new developments. When parking minimums are not in place, new developments may face flnancing issues – as banks tend to lend more freely to projects that meet or include traditional parking standards. Additionally, parking is often viewed as a value- add for development projects (including developers, lenders, and investors). The perceived lack of adequate parking may be a deterrent. However, not mandating parking can reduce development costs, encourage redevelopment, and increase housing affordability. Development projects become more feasible when minimum parking requirements are reduced or removed. This is particularly useful for inflll development on smaller lots and in the repurposing of existing buildings. Again, reducing or removing parking minimums allows developers to provide parking for their consumers based on actual market demand or need rather than industry standards calculated for peak demand. As previously noted, alternative transportation modes are encouraged without parking minimums in residential areas. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 7 This is especially true when on-street parking is limited or regulated – which can be codifled in UDC residential provisions. GAR encourages the UDC’s affordable housing language to allow for parking reductions in exchange for providing amenities or other community beneflt(s) within a development. However, we encourage increased discretion in development review to ensure that the provided beneflts justify the reduction in parking requirements. The bottom line is that housing affordability is improved through the reduction or elimination of parking requirements. If the UDC parking language allows for parking reductions in exchange for the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments, GAR supports this. Height Limits & Setbacks. Preserving the unique character of Bozeman is a priority for GAR. Balancing height limits and density needs is delicate and necessary. Setbacks that maintain, enhance, and improve the aesthetics and functionality of buildings is an equally difficult and important balance to strike. The UDC sets height restrictions and setback requirements in each of the residential and commercial zones. Some residential areas have 3-story height limits while downtown mixed-use areas show 7-story restrictions. These height limits will deflne the urban, suburban, rural, and commercial scales. It is clear these limits support appropriate and area-sensitive densiflcation. The setbacks outlined in the UDC will be able to effectively manage the relationship between all interested, private and public, parties and spaces. This language is intended to uphold and enrich Bozeman’s neighborhood characteristics and aesthetics. GAR supports the height limits and setbacks outlined in residential and commercial zones. To preserve the charm and unique charisma of Bozeman’s main street, GAR suggests that the written code—knowing that this draft has and there is currently, height and story regulations-- explicitly that no building be higher than the Baxter sign. Zone map amendments. Ensuring that this section of the code allows people to sensitively maneuver around existing zoning regulations that apply to their property or the intent of a project is paramount. Easily navigable amendment processes are an excellent measure of well-written zoning, building, and planning regulations. The UDC demonstrates a fiexible approach to urban planning and outlines the process for zone map amendments. The necessity for zoning adaptability is of utmost importance. Accommodating change in zoning regulations is key to the longevity of Bozeman and its character. GAR believes this section is in line with this point, but would like to see more substantive ability and further streamlined amendment Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 8 processes for the city and individuals to adapt to the rapidly and continuously shifting Bozeman landscape. Historic Neighborhoods & NCOD. Bozeman’s character is perhaps best described as always being historically progressive. By this, we mean that the character of homes and buildings in Bozeman has always kept up with the times – blending contemporary and historically Bozeman, Western architecture. US Bank, on Main & Black, and its renovation is a great example. Historic neighborhoods and Conservation Overlay Districts are a good tool to preserve the historical signiflcance of buildings, homes, and landmarks while allowing for modern uses and adaptations. The UDC’s historic neighborhood and NCOD deflnitions and provisions sufficiently balance the community’s conservation wishes and contemporary needs. There are provisions for the “adaptive reuse” of historic buildings to suit modern needs as well as for the preservation of historic neighborhoods, homes, and buildings. If the historic neighborhood and NCOD provisions translate to effective regulatory policy, GAR believes that Bozeman will beneflt. NCOD and Historic Neighborhoods, thoughtfully implemented, will preserve the character of this community, maintain its unique and attractive feel, and remain a beautiful portion of the city. We believe that residential and commercial zoning districts – laid out in the section, Residential & Commercial Zones – are important facets of maintaining Bozeman’s charm. Main Street is the gem of Gallatin Valley and is one of the deflning characteristics of what makes Bozeman “Bozeman.” Historic and NCOD designations – alongside TIF, LIHTC, Business Improvement, and Urban Renewal Districts – are important reasons for Main Street being integral in Bozeman’s uniqueness. One main reason for Bozeman property being as valuable as it is (and why this value continues to rise) is the use of Historic and Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts. It is important to note that Historic Neighborhoods and the NCOD should never be synonymous with naturally occurring affordable housing. There are far better alternatives to subsidizing, maintaining, and building affordable housing. We support healthy evolution in our buildings, knowing the importance of unique “older” neighborhoods and new, innovative ones. When a neighborhood lacks sufficient support or does not meet the historic requirements for designation as a historic district, an NCOD offers a viable alternative for its preservation. Bozeman’s NCOD designation melds the local planning process and administrative structure as it employs “associative values,” beyond historic or architectural merits. Bozeman’s NCOD must have Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 9 additional leniency and fiexibility than is currently written into code. The historic district designation requires a full-fiedged design review, which should not be required in an NCOD. This said, the NCOD has restrictions and can be interpreted as mandating downzoning – which is not conducive to affordability. If building appearance (or use of speciflc materials to achieve a certain look) was codifled, we caution it challenges the First Amendment freedom of expression. Much of Bozeman has progressively improved its densiflcation and adapted by densifying, but the same cannot be said of historic neighborhoods and the NCOD. These areas of Bozeman lag sorely behind in both density (for which their residents are grateful), and in affordability. Again, it is important to note that designating any home(s) in these areas as naturally occurring affordable housing will only increase that land valuation. Alternatives GAR would like to see be explored further: The best-known examples that pertain to downtown development (in major cities) are as follows: New York City regulations allow developers a fioor area ratio bonus if they incorporate public pedestrian plazas; Seattle’s downtown zoning provisions offer density bonuses for “public beneflt” features such as open space or green street features; and the program announced by Bethesda, Maryland gave “flrst-in-line for approval” priority to projects around the Metrorail station that offered “a high quality of construction and signiflcant public amenities.” Transportation. GAR would like to see greater integration of transportation and land use. When transportation and land use planning combine vision with effective use, a city expands opportunities for multi-modal transit, reduces reliance on personal vehicles and traffic congestion, and promotes accessibility. Bozeman’s code does well to create cohesion between transportation and land use. The UDC links development with future transportation infrastructure, emphasizes pedestrian-oriented designs, and prioritizes future transit routes. GAR wants Bozeman, particularly, Main Street and its surrounding neighborhoods, to be less car- friendly and be replaced with walkable/bike-able options (as outlined in much of the SAFE plan). To this end, building a more robust public transport system is paramount to Bozeman being less car-dependent. The caveat to this is that to make Bozeman in “Amsterdam’s” image possible – being walkable, bike-able, and generally pedestrian-safe – those who work in the city limits but do not live there, must be able to commute safely without the burden of incurring these costs. The UDC can and should do more to expand upon and reinforce this multi-modal transit idea. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 10 Rules of Interpretation. GAR believes this is the strongest section in the UDC, and we hope it remains largely untouched. This section of the UDC ensures clear and consistent application of zoning regulations, building permits, subdivisions, and public policy. Clear and predictable zoning is imperative. Avoiding ambiguity, misinterpretation, and legal disputes is equally important. The details in this section show Bozeman’s commitment to these goals. Form-Based Code. GAR prefers that Form-Based code is used. A form-based code uses physical form to garner predictable, high-quality results in the public and private building realms. It is detailed and prescriptive which can mean predictable and easily planned development. This code purposefully creates dense, mixed-use, and pedestrian-friendly places. Additionally, it can streamline development processes, while not necessarily removing “red tape, and save developers and the city precious resources. The UDC mixes conventional and form-based in various sections. The commercial and mixed-use zones utilize form-based code principles most effectively by encouraging functional and aesthetically consistent buildings. While transitioning to a wholly form-based code would require massive section rewrites, the following notes must be made – in hopes that some portions of this can be incorporated: By requiring that buildings of a certain size and shape be built in speciflc zones, form-based code controls can make it more likely that attached or multifamily homes are built where permitted. Form-based code allows a broader range of use for all types of buildings. In particular, a shift from nonresidential to residential use is an easier transition under these principles than conventional code. This could help meet Bozeman’s shortage of multifamily units. For example, transitioning an office building or warehouse to lofts, condos, or apartments is far more approachable as less focus is paid to permitted use controls. A form-based code requires stakeholders to engage in outside-the-box development planning discussions that can beneflt the community in numerous ways – though, this could also be considered a drawback. Form-based code expands land use deflnitions and effectively adds a tool to the toolbelt. This can translate to more units built within speciflc building forms by allowing smaller and more units to bear the land costs – ultimately improving affordability. Considering that a key premise of form-based code provides an expansive deflnition of mixed-use zoning, that includes multiple housing types, it may be possible for the creation of a market environment where affordable housing is plentiful. This is especially possible when form-based code explicitly calls for different housing types in a redevelopment area where little to no residential development exists. The “Bozeman Brewery Historic District” is a mildly appropriate example of a Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 11 redevelopment area where, until recently, there was no (perhaps, minimal) residential development. A form-based code leveraged in this area—coinciding with proposed and potential LIHTC projects—that prioritizes a mixed-use market to diversify housing types can result in affordable housing being built. On the other hand, there are drawbacks to a form-based code’s impact on affordability. The main argument is that development occurring under form-based code tends to be above average cost, regionally. 1. Form-based codes may restrict or eliminate density or height bonuses, a tool that Bozeman may need to remain in the UDC so that a stand-alone AHO can be crafted. 2. Form-based codes may inhibit affordability by requiring vertical mixed-use buildings (i.e., housing over a retail or commercial ground fioor), which may be more expensive. 3. Because they better refiect the built environment, form-based codes may reduce opportunities for affordable housing by eliminating “overzoning” (i.e., zoning regulations that permit residential buildings of three or more stories but are developed with one- and two-story single-family homes). 4. Form-based controls often include architectural standards for new development and redevelopment that can indirectly raise the cost of housing constructed under the code. 5. There are many different plans detailing how Bozeman manages its growth, and a form- based code may become burdensome and overly speciflc for certain areas. However, a 2021 study by the Form-Based Codes Institute and Smart Growth America found that the average rent for multifamily development in places with form-based codes grew at a slower pace than comparison areas with conventional zoning. The study determined that this was because there were more housing options in the studied form-based code areas serving a wider range of household incomes. Covenants and HOAs. The city should consider this a private property rights issue with the only exclusion to this being water usage. GAR cautions that covenants and HOA regulations can be overly restrictive. As such, we urge these provisions – the interaction of private covenants and HOAs – to strike the delicate balance between private and public objectives. We hope to see neither hold power over the other. The UDC states, in so many words, that so long as private agreements do not undermine public objectives, they can be freely enacted. While this is excellent, GAR wants assurances that public agreements will not undermine reasonable private objectives. A governing document, currently outlined, can serve as a set of rules that HOAs may choose to enact as their covenant – but it should go no further than this. Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 12 Planned Development Zones. Planned development zones allow for innovative land use. The proposed draft offers unique opportunities for mixed-use projects, that deviate from standard zoning regulations, to be proposed. GAR is largely ambivalent about PDZs but would like to highlight the following impacts that will likely occur in Bozeman with this outlined shift in the UDC. It is important to note that PDZs have been in effect for a while in Bozeman and therefore may not change at all. As Bozeman has shifted away from PUDs, exploring cluster developments—loosely deflned as developments where buildings and structures are grouped on a site—serves as a better opposing viewpoint and is more closely related to PDZs. As an overview, PDZs allow a variety of land uses and building types within a single development. Both PDZs and cluster developments offer development fiexibility within an integral unit. Open space and natural areas can be preserved while increasing the value of adjacent properties. Importantly, developers and applicants can save on infrastructure costs when cluster developments are used. Because open space and common areas are prevalent in both PDZs, creation and maintenance costs may be best served through joint ownership ventures, such as an HOA. Finally, development planning and design is an intensive process in both PDZ and cluster developments that must be closely scrutinized by municipal staff, citizen advisory boards, and the city commission before being passed. Data from Amherst and Concord, Massachusetts, show a higher appreciation rate for cluster development with open space than for residential properties with larger private yards but no protected open space. A 2006 study of real estate transactions in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, found that developed lots in conservation subdivisions carried additional values of 12% to 16% per acre and sold in about half the time compared to conventional subdivision lots. The value of the open space tends to be capitalized into the value of the adjoining parcels. The requirement of a flxed amount of open space in every cluster development or PDZ may not bring added value to the parcel or individual lots within the development where such developments are located near existing parks or community centers or on parcels lacking in signiflcant aesthetic or recreational value. Cluster development and PDZ do not necessarily alter the total amount of land developed but rather affect the pattern in which it is developed. Clustering increases building density in some areas of development to make it possible to keep other areas open. With cluster development, an entire community can be built within a single zone, and density requirements regulate the relationship between residences and open areas to achieve a desirable balance – for which Bozeman and the UDC have little deflnition. Oversight by the municipality is necessary to ensure that open space provided by developers in cluster arrangements is usable. For example, if all the area set aside as open space is swampland, it would not be desirable as active recreation. On the other hand, the cluster principle is admirably adapted for keeping open such areas as rocky outcrops, fioodplains, and stream banks. In a study of cluster zoning cases in Loudoun County, Virginia, the Loudoun County Preservation and Conservation Coalition determined that cluster Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 13 development was less protective of farmland than rural hamlet zoning and that preserved land was not farmable – an important consideration for Bozeman. PDZs have a broader range of impacts on patterns of land development. A PDZ can fulflll the need for well-designed communities by improving population distribution and the range of housing options because it allows greater density in some areas of development in return for greater open space elsewhere on the parcel. The developer of a PDZ can improve the land as an integral unit, with considerable fiexibility, instead of being forced to build on a lot-by-lot basis with required setbacks and yard limitations (though this may go against certain residential zoning regulations outlined elsewhere in the UDC). A PDZ also provides fiexibility in the arrangement of uses, enabling the land to be developed as a whole, which applies more fiexible land use controls and permits diversiflcation in the use of buildings and other site qualities. Design fiexibility allows and encourages the concentration of buildings on portions of a site that are most suitable for building – leading to environmentally sensitive development and preservation of open space. A PDZ can help overcome topographical problems by enabling developers to capitalize on a region’s unique characteristics while easing zone edge transitions. When used to its fullest potential, the planned development zone can fulflll various needs for the developer, occupants, and community. The ultimate goal of a planned development zone is achieved when an entire self-contained community is permitted to be built within a zoning district, with the rules of density controlling not only the relation of private dwellings to open space, but also the relation of homes to commercial establishments and quasi-commercial establishments. Developments, including PDZs, that incorporate clustering have a fiexible land use concept for providing low- and moderate-income housing. The concept can combine higher-density development with more traditional suburban aesthetics. The most effective features of cluster development and PDZ for encouraging affordable housing are the development cost economies that can be achieved through the clustering of buildings and the related savings in site development costs for items such as streets, sidewalks, and utility lines. Reducing the amount of required infrastructure also helps reduce the costs of maintaining it. A general zoning code that provisionally allows for one or more affordable housing units as a code-based incentive to go beyond market- rate unit density allowances can be useful in this design. Affordable housing development can be expressly authorized and encouraged through cluster zoning. On the other hand, developments in which land is set aside as open space other than a homeowner’s backyard or a public park or recreational area require the creation of a homeowner’s association to maintain the open space. Requiring entry-level homebuyers to pay a fee for the work of such an association adds a flnancial burden on those who are least able to pay for it. In situations where cluster development is mandatory, as with conservation subdivisions, for example, a program for the purchase of development rights (PDR) or transfer of development rights (TDR) offers an incentive-based alternative to the preservation of open space. Typically, however, PDZ is not mandatory under land use regulations. Also, because the PDZ has the potential to allow Unifled Development Code Sensible & Lasting Zoning 14 for a comprehensive approach to site plan issues and development impacts, individual incentive- based alternatives do not provide the comprehensiveness of a PDZ. Performance-based zoning likely represents the most appropriate alternative for Bozeman, whether regulatory or incentive-based, to PDZ, PUD, or cluster development.