HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-02-25 Public Comment - Gallatin Valley Sentinel - UDC Chat FeedbackFrom:The Gallatin Valley Sentinel
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC Chat Feedback
Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 12:08:47 AM
Attachments:GVS UDC Chat Feedback.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,
We submitted the attached feedback from our UDC Chat with Bozeman residents on theEngage Bozeman page and are submitting this as written comment as well. The survey results
are inclusive of a few individuals who live just outside of city limits, but the majority ofrespondents are within city limits.
Thank you.
Neighborhoods
Overall Comments:
Neighborhoods aren’t just collections of people. They are physical, tangible places—
defined by their scale, their architecture, their trees, their setbacks, and their overall
rhythm. These are not abstract values. They are visible, lived experiences that give
communities their identity and function. If the city truly cares about housing and livability, it
must stop treating stable neighborhoods as development opportunities. Real planning is
about balance, not forcing growth into the very places that people cherish most. That idea
is getting lost.
A neighborhood isn’t just where people happen to live. It’s a physical, intentional
environment. It’s the homes, the trees, the spacing between buildings. It’s the scale, the
calm, the rhythm of the streets. These things create community, not just in theory, but in
practice. They shape how people walk, talk, raise families, and grow old.
When the city talks about “housing types” and “nodes” and “density near amenities,” it’s
treating neighborhoods like policy tools, not real places. But neighborhoods are more than
zones. They are legacies. And they matter.
Preserving neighborhood character isn’t about saying no to the future. It’s about protecting
what works: beauty, continuity, and livability. We need a UDC that respects that and one
that strengthens what we already have, not one that chips away at it in the name of growth.
Please stop treating our neighborhoods like development targets. Start treating them like
the foundations and building blocks of this city.
1. What defines the boundary of your neighborhood in your opinion? Your block? Your
neighbors? A map?
It’s more than just a line on a map or a collection of houses. It’s a cohesive, physical place
with a distinct identity. Neighborhoods are defined by what you see and feel when you
enter it: the style and spacing of the homes, the canopy of mature trees, the quiet streets,
and the sense of care and continuity. It’s the pattern of front yards and porches, the view
down the street, the walk to the mailbox. These physical details shape the social life of the
neighborhood, but they come first. Without them, it’s just a set of buildings.
Boundaries aren’t arbitrary—they’re felt. You know when you’ve left one neighborhood and
entered another, not because a sign told you, but because the atmosphere changes. That
sense of place is fragile, and it deserves to be respected and preserved, not redrawn to suit
density plans or development pressure.
Neighborhoods aren’t just who lives in them. It’s what is in them, and people are one part of
that equation. The homes, the yards, the trees, the porches, and the spacing between
structures are all a part of it.
2. How do you think the UDC could help maintain what you like about your
neighborhood?
The UDC should reinforce the scale, look, feel, and use of existing neighborhoods—things
like setbacks, height limits, and architectural consistency. Many would like to see
protections that prevent oversized, out-of-place buildings and that preserve green space,
quiet, and the low-traSic character. The code should prioritize livability for current
residents, not just future growth. The Unified Development Code should protect what’s
working—not disrupt it. Density will not prevent sprawl. The UDC should reinforce the
traditional character of Bozeman’s established neighborhoods, not re-engineer them in the
name of infill or "modernization." Residents have invested their lives and life savings here.
They didn’t sign up to live in an “urban node.” We need a UDC that respects context, not
one that just accommodates outside demand or prioritizes “aSordable” housing at all
costs.
3. What kinds of commercial uses would you most like to see within a ¼ mile walk of
your home, and which do you see as most likely to be successful?
People are open to small, community-serving businesses like a café, coSee shop, or a
bakery, places that feel like part of the neighborhood and don’t bring heavy traSic or noise.
They do not want to see retail, bars, gas stations, grocery stores, dispensaries, or anything
with high customer turnover or late hours. Success depends on whether the business fits
the scale and personality of the neighborhood. If any commercial uses are introduced into
residential areas, they must be low-scale, low-traSic, and truly serve the surrounding
residents. People will not support intrusive businesses that add noise, traSic, or
compromise safety or tranquility.
4. Considering the context of your neighborhood, if a new building were built, would
you be most concerned about how the building looks or how many people live in it?
Both are important, but everyone agrees that appearance comes first. A building that sticks
out like a sore thumb changes the entire feel of a block. That said, there are concerns about
overcrowding. Too many units mean more cars, more noise, and more pressure on our
streets and infrastructure. Design and density are inseparable. A building that is out of
scale visually disrupts the street. A building that crams in too many units disrupts the
function, adding cars, noise, and strain to the infrastructure. Both erode neighborhood
character. We oppose both.
5. In Phase 1 outreach, we heard that higher density was preferred near places of
employment, schools, transit, and main roads. Do you have any of these facilities
in or near your neighborhood?
We might have a school or a bus line nearby, but that doesn’t mean our neighborhood is
suited for high density. A lot of people chose to live here because it isn’t dense, or at least it
wasn’t. It’s still mostly quiet, with room to breathe. Just because something is close by on a
map doesn’t mean the character of the area can or should change to accommodate
growth. This is a trick question. Labeling schools, roads, or bus stops as reasons to
increase density near neighborhoods is a clever way to chip away at stable neighborhoods.
Many areas have these amenities because families live there—not because they’re ripe for
upzoning. Having a bus stop down the street doesn’t mean we want—or should be forced
to accept—apartment blocks next door. Higher density is not generally preferred “near
schools.” The only school this should even remotely be considered for is near MSU. If the
city is going to allow high density anywhere, it should be closest to the university. MSU
should be building for its own growth, both housing and parking, and should not be
counting on the city to subsidize it.
Housing
Overall Comments:
The City of Bozeman keeps presenting the housing debate as a binary: either we accept
more density and infill in our neighborhoods, or we’re opposing growth and affordability.
That’s a false choice, and more and more people are starting to see this.
No one is against housing or growth. They are against bad planning that uses "housing" as a
pretext to erase the very things that make Bozeman livable: stable neighborhoods, human-
scale design, and a connection to place.
The current approach pushes density as a one-size-fits-all solution, with little concern for
long-term consequences. We’re told that upzoning traditional neighborhoods is necessary
because they’re near a bus stop or a school, as if proximity to public infrastructure or
employment justifies destroying neighborhood character. The “near jobs and transit”
argument is a loophole big enough to swallow the entire city, and it’s being used that way.
We’re also asked to choose between “taller buildings or wider footprints,” between
“number of units or appearance” as if those are our only options. These are trap questions,
designed to get us to concede to growth on the Commission’s terms. This is a game that
does not need to be played.
What Bozeman actually needs is planning that respects context, scale, and the lived
experience of residents. That means:
• Preserving neighborhoods that already work.
• Rejecting arbitrary density targets that serve developers more than residents.
• Recognizing that real affordability requires more than just cramming in units—it
requires thoughtful zoning, infrastructure investment, and protection of livability.
Neighborhoods are not problems to be solved. They are places to be protected. These
policies pretend that the only way forward is to bulldoze what works in the name of the
density and infill ideology.
Residents are offended by being presented with false choices and developer-driven
planning.
1. What is your greatest concern regarding housing in Bozeman?
The greatest concern is that the city is destroying what people love about Bozeman in the
name of solving the “aSordability crisis” and is failing at both. We're being fed a false
narrative that density and infill are the only solutions, even as prices remain high and the
quality of life declines. More units don’t equal more aSordability. What we’re really getting
is more profit for developers, more traSic, less green space, and the erasure of
neighborhood character. People are also concerned that Bozeman’s growth calculations
and assumptions for the number of aSordable housing units needed do not parse out MSU
student data, which disproportionately skews both.
2. How do you think this concern could best be addressed in the UDC?
The UDC should stop prioritizing quantity over quality. Instead of cramming more units onto
every available lot, it should protect the scale, form, and function of existing
neighborhoods. Growth should be guided, not forced, and aSordability should be pursued
through smart policy, not reckless upzoning. That means protecting traditional residential
areas and holding the line on design, scale, and use.
3. In Phase 1 outreach, we heard that higher density was preferred near places of
employment, schools, transit, and main roads. What does this mean to you? (i.e. types
of uses, heights, how close is ‘near,’ etc.)
See answer in Neighborhoods section.
It sounds like a pre-scripted justification to force density wherever they want it. These
"nodes" are everywhere, so this line of thinking becomes a blank check to upzone nearly
any neighborhood. It’s a setup and feels like a clever way to sell overdevelopment as
inevitable. To most, it means the Commission has already decided what they want to do,
and this narrative is just a cover. “Near” is subjective, and these uses don’t erase the fact
that neighborhoods need stability and protection from creeping density.
4. If the number of homes on your block were to increase, would you rather see that
happen as taller, narrow buildings or shorter, larger footprint buildings?
This is a false choice. People don’t want to see the number of homes on their block
increase just for the sake of hitting a density target. Whether it’s tall and skinny or wide and
bulky, both disrupt the existing scale and feel of the neighborhood. The question assumes
the outcome and just asks how we’d like it served. That’s not planning; it’s cornering the
public into choosing how to accept harm. People generally resent this question and the
posturing.
5. Are you more concerned about the number of dwellings in a building, or how it
looks?
Both matter and the question pretends we can only care about one. A building that looks
fine but adds too many people, cars, and strain on infrastructure still degrades the
neighborhood. And a small unit count that looks completely out of place is equally
damaging. It's not either/or; it's the overall impact. Stop asking residents to choose what
kind of damage we’d prefer.
6. If you said “how it looks,” are you more concerned about height, bulk, or design and
why?
All three. Height disrupts views, shadowing, and the sense of human scale. Bulk
overwhelms the street and makes walkability and light worse. Design determines whether a
building fits the character of the neighborhood or sticks out like a sore thumb. These things
together create the look and feel of a place. Picking one strips the issue of its full impact.
7. What characteristics of housing make it likely for diVerent types of housing to fit
well together in your view?
Scale, setbacks, rooflines, materials, and landscaping. If a duplex or ADU is added, it
should look and feel like it belongs—not like a mini-apartment complex shoved into a
residential street. The form matters more than the label. And most importantly, it should be
the exception, not the rule. “Blending in” doesn’t just mean matching the paint—it means
respecting the form, flow, and capacity of the neighborhood.
This is a leading question designed to steer people toward accepting form-based zoning,
where the form of a building supposedly matters more than how it’s used or how many
people live in it. That’s a deeply flawed planning philosophy. It pretends that as long as
something “looks right,” it won’t change the character or function of a neighborhood.
Form-based zoning ignores reality. It ignores traffic, parking, noise, population density, and
how infrastructure is strained when you add more and more units under the illusion of
“compatibility.” Just because you slap on a gabled roof or mimic a porch doesn’t mean a
building belongs in a neighborhood. It’s not about the paint color or siding—it’s about the
overall capacity of the place and whether it can still function as a neighborhood after that
change.
If you really want different housing types to fit well together, the answer is simple: limit
them. Don’t force them. Let them be the exception, not the standard. Respect setbacks,
lot sizes, and context. And most of all, stop trying to engineer social outcomes by
manipulating form.
8. What characteristics of a building make it feel “too tall” versus acceptable?
“Too tall” is when a building looms, casts shadows, blocks views, and breaks the continuity
of the street. It’s when you can see it from multiple blocks away and it jars the eye.
Acceptable height means consistency with what’s around it—no surprises, no skyline
shifts, no need to rationalize it with density theory. People instinctively know when a
building doesn’t belong. The city should listen to that instinct, not override it.
This question is another setup. It’s framed to make you talk about “feelings” and
subjective perceptions—because planners know if they can make height and bulk a matter
of taste, they can push through taller buildings with “good design” and say the problem’s
been solved. This is just more form-based zoning manipulation, where everything is boiled
down to how a building looks—not how it actually functions or impacts a neighborhood.
A building is “too tall” when it doesn’t belong in the context of its surroundings. That
includes:
• When it shadows homes and yards
• When it looms over the street and destroys the human scale
• When it overwhelms existing one- and two-story homes
• When it signals that the city has stopped caring about protecting neighborhoods
and serves developers and architects instead
Height isn’t just a design issue—it’s a power move. It changes who a neighborhood is for.
When you allow taller and bulkier buildings, you send a message that stability no longer
matters—that families and longtime residents are being pushed aside for density and infill
in hopes that oversupply will make housing more “affordable,” ignoring the fact that most
(not all) people do not find living in apartments desirable. We have more renters in
Bozeman because that is what we’ve built for, not because it was a natural, organic shift.
This isn’t about what feels “too tall.” It’s about what is wrong for the place. And if the city
tries to rewrite that conversation around “design guidelines” or “feeling acceptable,” it’s
just a smokescreen for a density and infill agenda the public never asked for.
Growth
Overall comments:
Bozeman’s approach to growth is broken—because it’s been driven by ideology, not
reality. The city continues to treat Bozeman like a blank canvas, ready to be reshaped for
density targets and planning experiments, rather than a real community with history,
identity, and established neighborhoods worth protecting.
The current land use plan assumes that more development—whether through outward
expansion or infill—is inevitable and desirable. But this is a false narrative. It’s not a
question of where to grow until the city takes responsibility for how poorly it has planned
for the growth it’s already allowed. The Community Plan is outdated, the Future Land Use
Map doesn’t reflect the city on the ground, and residents are being forced to defend their
neighborhoods against encroachment that was never supposed to happen.
We reject the city’s attempt to corner us into false choices—between bulk or unit count,
height or footprint, form or function. These are manipulative frameworks meant to soften
the public into accepting outcomes we never asked for. Bozeman deserves better than
form-based zoning dressed up as community input.
We are asking that the city:
• Update the Community Plan immediately, based on what exists—not on ideological
dreams or consultant renderings.
• Rezone to reflect reality, not theoretical futures.
• Preserve stable neighborhoods instead of making them justify their own existence.
• Define Bozeman’s identity before expanding or intensifying any further.
We know our zoning. We know what’s being proposed. And we know what’s at stake: the
future livability of this city. Growth without identity is destruction. It's time for Bozeman to
choose who it wants to be—and stop acting like a city that’s afraid to say “enough.”
1. Bozeman’s land use plan identifies a need for both outward expansion of the city
and intensification in existing developed areas to meet housing and employment
needs in the future. How should these needs be balanced?
It’s been reckless, reactive, and developer-driven. Bozeman has treated its open space like
a blank canvas—but instead of painting something meaningful, they’ve scribbled all over it
with no vision, no spine, and no respect for the people who already live here. Growth didn’t
sneak up on us; we failed to properly plan for it. And now they act like we’re the problem for
wanting to preserve what little identity we have left.
Bozeman’s growth hasn’t been “managed”—it’s been unleashed. And now we’re all living
in the fallout. The city talks about smart growth, but what we’ve seen is a total lack of
restraint or foresight. Developers have been handed the keys, and residents are left
dodging the consequences: overcrowded streets, vanishing open space, rising costs, and
a creeping sense that the city we once loved is slipping away.
Bozeman was never meant to be a blank canvas. The only reason it feels that way is
because of the open land around us—which city officials and outside consultants and
developers have mistaken for a license to build endlessly. They see possibility. We see
irresponsibility.
This isn't just a growing city—it's a city that has refused to decide who it wants to be. And in
the absence of a real identity, the market, the planners, and the ideologues are rushing in
to define it for us.
They should be balanced by first asking the question that no one at the city seems willing
to confront: what kind of city are we actually trying to be? Because right now, Bozeman is
pursuing growth in every direction with zero restraint—up, out, and everywhere in
between—without ever defining the limits of its own identity.
This question frames “outward expansion” and “intensification” as two valid strategies we
simply need to "balance." But the truth is, the city has failed at managing either. Sprawl will
happen, no matter how much density is jammed into existing neighborhoods under the
excuse of “infill.”
Real planning doesn’t treat the past as disposable. It doesn’t force long-standing
neighborhoods to absorb the consequences of a broken land use map. If Bozeman needs
more housing and employment space, then the first step isn’t expansion or
intensification—it’s correction. Fix the outdated Community Plan. Fix the zoning. Rezone
based on reality. And start making decisions that respect what exists, instead of bulldozing
it to fix bad forecasting.
2. Are you more concerned about the bulk and scale of a building or the number of
homes in a building?
This is another forced choice, and it’s dishonest. We’re concerned about both, because
they’re connected—and pretending they aren’t is just a way to push density under the
radar.
Bulk and scale affect how a building fits into the neighborhood visually. The number of
units affects how it functions—traffic, parking, noise, and pressure on local infrastructure.
One without the other is incomplete. If you cram multiple units into a building that “looks
okay,” the impact on the block is still real. And if you make a single-family home the size of
a warehouse, the impact is visual.
We reject the idea that we’re only allowed to care about one. The better question is: Why is
the city trying so hard to make people feel like they have to pick their poison?
3. What characteristics of a tall building make it feel “too tall” versus acceptable?
A building is “too tall” when it doesn’t belong where it’s built. “Acceptability” isn’t about
inches on a measuring stick—it’s about context. Height becomes a problem when:
• It breaks the roofline of the block
• It casts shadows onto smaller homes
• It interrupts views and sightlines
• It changes the rhythm of the street
• It announces that a neighborhood has been reclassified by the city without its
consent
Tall buildings don’t feel “too tall” in a vacuum—they feel wrong when they’re forced into
areas that weren’t designed for them. The real issue is that the city is trying to normalize
vertical intrusion into low-scale areas. This is how you erase a neighborhood without
technically rezoning it—you just allow buildings that overpower everything around them.
4. In Phase 1 outreach, we heard that more intensive development was preferred near
places of employment, schools, transit, and main roads. What does this mean to you
(i.e. types of uses, heights, etc.)
It means the city has created a narrative that gives them cover to upzone almost anywhere.
Because if you look at a map, you’ll see that nearly every neighborhood in Bozeman is near
a school, a bus stop, a road, or a job. That “preference” is being used as a blank check for
infill, even in established areas where intensive development doesn’t fit and wasn’t agreed
to.
To us, it means:
• Taller buildings near schools? More traffic where kids walk and bike.
• More units near transit? A fantasy, since Bozeman has barely functional transit.
There will be many iterations of the UDC between now and when Bozeman’s transit
system “maybe” expands.
• More development near “main roads”? Ambiguous and vague. Is that a commercial
corridor or just the nearest collector street?
This framing is a classic example of planner word games: they ask vague questions,
interpret the answers loosely, and use it all to justify a plan that was already in motion.
“Intensive development” should not be the default. It should be earned, reviewed, and
placed where it makes sense—not where it’s easiest to push through resistance.
5. Do you know what zoning district you live in? Do you have any concerns with what’s
allowed there?
Yes, but people don’t believe that it means much anymore. Because zoning in Bozeman
has become a moving target, as evidenced by the attempts to create and group existing
zones in the new UDC. The city’s land use map and zoning designations no longer reflect
what’s actually built. And neighborhoods that thought they were protected by zoning are
finding out they’re not—because form-based tricks, overlays, conditional uses, and vague
“visions” can override it all.
Knowing your zoning isn’t enough anymore. Residents now have to watch the city like
hawks, hire attorneys, and prepare for battle if they want to preserve what used to be
common sense: that a low-density neighborhood should stay low-density, and that zoning
should mean something.
Transportation
Overall Comments:
Bozeman is a winter town, a rural town, and a car-dependent town—and it’s time the city
started planning like it.
The current transportation vision in the UDC is rooted in a fantasy where people bike
through snowbanks and take transit that barely exists. That may fit a planner’s model, but
it doesn't reflect the lived experience of Bozeman residents. People here rely on cars
because they have to and prefer to—especially in the winter. Our survey results confirm
this. And no amount of density or design theory will change that.
We support investments in sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit as supplemental options, but
not as excuses to underbuild roads, eliminate parking, or jam dense developments into
places without proper vehicle access. The UDC must acknowledge and accommodate the
reality of year-round vehicle use and the importance of safe, plowable, accessible streets.
Good transportation planning doesn’t shame drivers—it serves them. That’s what
Bozeman needs.
1. What is your greatest concern regarding traVic congestion as it applies to the UDC?
The biggest concern is that the UDC is actively making traffic congestion worse by
encouraging high-density infill without requiring adequate infrastructure to support it. More
units mean more cars. That’s just reality—especially in Bozeman, where personal vehicles
are the only reliable year-round mode of transportation.
The city keeps approving developments with too many people and not enough parking,
under the fantasy that people will walk or bike instead. But Bozeman isn’t a walkable
utopia. It’s a winter city, and most residents aren't going to give up their cars when the
sidewalks are icy, the wind is howling, and it's dark before 5:00 p.m.
Instead of acknowledging this, the UDC is being used as a tool to funnel more people into
neighborhoods that were never designed to handle that volume—without widening streets,
upgrading intersections, or even ensuring basic traffic flow. It’s congestion by design.
2. How can the UDC improve traVic safety, including people walking and biking?
The UDC can improve safety by first accepting Bozeman’s reality: that most people drive,
and they’re going to continue to drive—especially in the winter. Designing for that fact is
the first step toward safety.
Here’s what would actually help:
• Enforce realistic speed limits, especially in residential areas and school zones.
• Require sidewalks and lighting in all developments—many areas still lack even
basic pedestrian infrastructure. This is in addition to proper roads.
• Ensure every new development includes safe street crossings and traffic-calming
measures, where appropriate.
• Don’t shove more density into narrow, already-burdened neighborhoods where
added cars make streets less safe for everyone—including pedestrians and
cyclists.
Trying to fix safety by pretending people will ditch their cars for year-round biking and
walking is not practical. Instead, plan for vehicle use, make walking and biking safe where
it makes sense, and stop using “multimodal access” as an excuse to overload
neighborhoods.
Parking
Overall Comments:
The City of Bozeman must stop pretending that eliminating parking minimums is a step
toward sustainability and creates affordability. What it is is a step toward chaos—and
working-class residents and long-standing neighborhoods are the ones paying the price.
The Unified Development Code (UDC) should require developers to provide realistic, off-
street parking for the people they house and the businesses they build—not rely on already
limited curbside parking. On-street parking is public infrastructure, not a subsidy for
private development.
By removing parking minimums, the city has shifted the burden of infrastructure onto
neighbors, jammed up residential streets, and created unnecessary tension between new
and existing residents. This is especially dangerous in winter, when snow piles and narrow
streets already threaten public safety and the ability for the city to plow.
Parking is not a luxury. In Bozeman, it's a necessity—and the UDC should treat it that way.
Reinstate parking minimums, prohibit developers from offloading their responsibility onto
the public, and plan like cars actually exist—because they do.
1. What are your greatest concerns regarding parking as it applies to the UDC?
The greatest concern is that the city is systematically eliminating parking minimums,
pushing a policy agenda that ignores real-world conditions and burdens existing
neighborhoods. The UDC is being used to promote density while pretending cars won’t
follow—but they do. And when they do, they flood the streets, overwhelm already-limited
curbside parking, and create conflict between new development and longtime residents.
Developments are being approved without enough off-street parking, relying entirely on
already crowded public streets. That’s not planning—that’s outsourcing a developer’s
responsibility to the neighborhood. Residents end up circling for parking or dealing with
overflow from nearby buildings. The UDC should protect existing communities, not punish
them by enabling under-parked developments.
2. How do you think these concerns could be best addressed in the UDC?
The UDC should reinstate and enforce meaningful parking minimums based on unit count,
square footage, and actual car ownership trends in Bozeman—not wishful national
averages or consultant-driven models that ignore Montana’s climate and culture.
Here’s what that looks like:
• Require off-street parking for all new residential and commercial developments,
sized to reflect realistic usage patterns—not idealized projections.
• Prohibit developers from counting street parking toward their minimums. Public
right-of-way should serve the public—not subsidize private development.
• Adjust standards for winter—acknowledging that snow removal and seasonal car
use make on-street parking even more limited.
Bozeman needs a parking policy that starts from reality: this is a car-dependent city, and
pretending otherwise doesn’t make it sustainable—it just makes it dysfunctional.
3. How do you see potential financial costs related to this implementation being met?
Developers should bear the cost of providing parking for the people they plan to house or
serve. That’s not a burden—that’s a basic responsibility. No one should be allowed to build
at urban scale while dumping the infrastructure cost on taxpayers and neighbors.
If the city wants to support more efficient development, it can:
• Streamline permitting for projects that meet parking requirements,
• Offer incentives for underground or structured parking, and
• Use impact fees to help fund neighborhood infrastructure improvements where
increased development is allowed.
But let’s be clear: cutting parking to save money is not planning. It’s deferring cost to
everyone else—and it degrades the livability of the city. You can’t build a functional
community without space for the cars that people actually use.
GVS UDC Survey
1 / 38
Q1 The items listed below are the most common areas of interest and
concern Bozeman residents have expressed about the update to the city's
Unified Development Code (UDC). Please rank these topics in order of
importance to you.
Answered: 34 Skipped: 1
GVS UDC Survey
2 / 38
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Residential
zoning
districts
Neighborhood
character
Density
Population
growth
Historic
preservation
Bike
infrastructure
Pedestrian
infrastructure
Parking number
and
configuration
Water adequacy
Minimizing
agricultural
impacts
Sensitive
lands (e.g.
streams and...
Business
development
(jobs)
Affordable
housing
creation
Affordable
housing
preservation
Building height
Expansion of
City boundary
GVS UDC Survey
3 / 38
23.53%
8
26.47%
9
20.59%
7
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
20.59%
7
2.94%
1
23.53%
8
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
8.82%
3
8.82%
3
2.94%
1
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
26.47%
9
26.47%
9
11.76%
4
14.71%
5
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
23.53%
8
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
8.82%
3
14.71%
5
20.59%
7
14.71%
5
2.94%
1
14.71%
5
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
8.82%
3
14.71%
5
2.94%
1
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
8.82%
3
5.88%
2
11.76%
4
11.76%
4
8.82%
3
2.94%
1
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
8.82%
3
5.88%
2
11.76%
4
8.82%
3
11.76%
4
8.82%
3
11.76%
4
8.82%
3
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
8.82%
3
2.94%
1
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
14.71%
5
20.59%
7
8.82%
3
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
8.82%
3
5.88%
2
14.71%
5
23.53%
8
11.76%
4
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
8.82%
3
8.82%
3
0.00%
0
17.65%
6
20.59%
7
8.82%
3
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
11.76%
4
5.88%
2
23.53%
8
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
8.82%
3
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
8.82%
3
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
11.76%
4
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
2.94%
1
0.00%
0
5.88%
2
5.88%
2
2.94%
1
5.88%
2
0.00%
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Residential
zoning
districts
Neighborhood
character
Density
Population
growth
Historic
preservation
Bike
infrastructure
Pedestrian
infrastructure
Parking
number and
configuration
Water
adequacy
Minimizing
agricultural
impacts
Sensitive
lands (e.g.
streams and
wetland
areas, steep
slopes)
Business
development
(jobs)
Affordable
housing
creation
Affordable
housing
preservation
Building
height
Expansion of
City
boundary
GVS UDC Survey
4 / 38
Q2 If you think important topic(s) are missing above, please list them here.
Answered: 11 Skipped: 24
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Protection of existing private property owner rights 4/25/2025 9:19 AM
2 enforcement of building codes via inspection enforcement of rental codes per code 4/24/2025 4:35 PM
3 Parking 4/23/2025 5:36 PM
4 No more gay pride crosswalks. Waste of money.4/23/2025 4:59 PM
5 None 4/23/2025 11:00 AM
6 The multi family housing sprawl that has been encouraged is taking away from our community
character and heritage. Single family housing with adequate lot sizes is the most desirable.
4/23/2025 10:43 AM
7 Family homes - not apartments or rentals but affordable homes to build a family 4/23/2025 10:04 AM
8 Larger Single Family Home Lots.4/23/2025 9:51 AM
9 Mixed use development 4/23/2025 8:56 AM
10 Enforcement of building codes. Bozeman is allowing unsafe buildings to be built-as someone
who lived in one. ACTUAL inspection should be occurring at EVERY construction stage.
4/22/2025 5:07 PM
11 Affordability for your average person. My property taxes are out of control. When can we get a
sales tax to have everyone who impacts our community, pay?
4/22/2025 2:51 PM
GVS UDC Survey
5 / 38
Q3 Please explain why your top three areas of interest and concern are
the most important to you.
Answered: 28 Skipped: 7
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Density is affecting traffic and parking. Zoning needs to be done correctly or it has a very
negative effect on areas of the city. Large apartment complexes shouldn’t be placed by single
family areas and there should be careful planning on the traffic flow, for example.
4/27/2025 6:08 AM
2 Many areas of town already have limited to no parking and with all the new development t is
getting worse. We also need neighborhoods with only single family homes. We have an
abundance of apartments with lots of vacancy.
4/25/2025 4:26 PM
3 Residential zoning seems haphazard in the downtown areas, historic overlay districts have
been created but not developed causing large costs for people in areas with failing properties
that should just be re-developed.
4/25/2025 9:19 AM
4 without water everything else becomes mute 4/24/2025 4:35 PM
5 Residential zoning districts will have a broad impact on all issues affecting the city and it's
residents so it's imperative that we have represenation in this process.
4/24/2025 8:38 AM
6 The ability for all the developers to continue ie to build massive housing developments is
ridiculous
4/24/2025 8:28 AM
7 Historical downtown 4/23/2025 5:36 PM
8 Having a nice neighborhood is fundamental to family values. We need sensible water
management that isn't focused on climate change
4/23/2025 4:59 PM
9 Density of homes, not affordable homes, pedestrian infrastructure 4/23/2025 2:57 PM
10 Population growth has been a concern to me, as many people I encounter that have moved
into the area are not contributing to the local economy Residential zoning is important as it
allows for more opportunities for local families to maintain residency and also own land and live
in the land that they can enjoy without obstructed views Minimizing Ag impacts is also
important, as my family works within agriculture and so it is important to maintain theses lands
for research, livelihood and jobs
4/23/2025 12:52 PM
11 These three items together will keep the Bozeman aesthetic, the reason why people want to
move here. Ensuring you can still see the mountains, ensuring our buildings are beautiful, and
ensuring the city zoning includes residential districts of varying densities.
4/23/2025 12:29 PM
12 Bozeman used to be an awesome small town. Nowadays it is growing at a rate that is causing
builders/developers to put up cookie cutter cheap housing. These homes are being built pretty
much on top of each other. I am all for growth but would love to see the track homes to stop
and build quality homes like on the southeast side of town.
4/23/2025 11:00 AM
13 Residential zoning,density and neighborhood character are intertwined and all have impact on
the other. Without zoning it would be hard to maintain appropriate density in areas and would
have detrimental impact on a neighborhoods character . Some neighborhoods function more
cohesively if they have zoning requirements and density limits
4/23/2025 10:48 AM
14 Preserving the environment, the beauty and character of Bozeman with nice homes, adequate
traffic flow and parking and the historic downtown are critical for the future. The high density
housing projects on postage stamp parcels is terrible. Bozeman is not conducive to a big city
urban center other than the several city blocks around downtown so the planning and
development departments need to stop trying to make that fit into what it doesn’t. It’s snowy
and cold 6-8 months of the year.
4/23/2025 10:43 AM
15 Having more density to create affordable housing at the cost of attractive single family
residents seriously compromises community values.
4/23/2025 10:23 AM
GVS UDC Survey
6 / 38
16 Bozeman needs high quality high paying jobs before it should be worrying about filling up the
ridiculous number of apartments in this city. A high population and low quality jobs is a recipe
for poverty. This is becoming a renter city and the disparity of wealth is going to be horrific if
we keep going in this direction.
4/23/2025 10:04 AM
17 Need jobs to build a community and need a community to be sustainable 4/23/2025 9:51 AM
18 People need to have high quality drinking water available in their homes. Our roads aren’t
equipped to handle a huge population growth and I also don’t want to see us building massive
freeways through Bozeman. It would be nice if young people who grew up in Bozeman were
able to afford homes within 30 minutes of where their families have always lived.
4/23/2025 9:50 AM
19 I would like for younger people like myself to be able to afford a single family home with a yard
and a garage, not an apartment. I want to start a family soon and be able to afford a family
home in a family-friendly neighborhood.
4/23/2025 9:25 AM
20 While building up Bozeman is important preserving what makes Bozeman so great should take
priority
4/23/2025 8:56 AM
21 The City is not financially capable of sustaining the woke growth they are projecting.4/23/2025 8:49 AM
22 Code enforcement-stated above. Zoning-rules need to be consistent and applied uniformly
Character-needs to be preserved.
4/22/2025 5:07 PM
23 The reason I moved to MT 30 yrs ago.4/22/2025 4:59 PM
24 Management of resources.4/22/2025 4:58 PM
25 The high density and city's position to limit future single family homes is a major concern.
Also, why does the city have such low standards for the density housing that is here. They
could have higher expectations of what these buildings should look like and need to require
developers to meet a higher standard of design and quality. All these developments look like
hell and they are brand new.
4/22/2025 4:10 PM
26 Population growth is too fast for infrastructure including the university which doesn’t seem to
contribute to infrastructure costs. Water - because if we don’t have quantity and quality then
every aspect of our community is severely impacted. Stop scraping affordable housing and
building these cheaply built condos and apartments that will look terrible in several years and
infrastructure can’t handle the thousands of units.
4/22/2025 2:51 PM
27 I’m concerned about the safety of residents packed in with no parking on already crowded
neighborhood streets. It’s going to be a problem with snow removal as well.
4/22/2025 1:56 PM
28 Density and infill are ruining the small town charm of our city/neighborhoods. Tall structures
ruin views and affect all the buildings they surround, we need to keep areas where only single
family homes have been established; every neighborhood does not need to be mixed use ~
down zone. Building height and lack of parking are having a negative impact on the way life
and city infrastructure.
4/22/2025 11:15 AM
GVS UDC Survey
7 / 38
Q4 Please pick three (3) areas that you think are less important for the
City to focus on / are not important to you.
Answered: 35 Skipped: 0
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Residential
zoning
districts
Neighborhood
character
Density
Population
growth
Historic
preservation
Bike
infrastructure
Pedestrian
infrastructure
Parking number
and
configuration
Water adequacy
Minimizing
agricultural
impacts
Sensitive
Lands (e.g.
streams and...
Business
development
(jobs)
Affordable
housing
creation
Affordable
housing
preservation
Building height
Expansion of
City boundary