Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Districts and Uses Work Session 7-14-2025 slides and materialsCity Commission July 14, 2025UDC UpdateDistricts and Uses Work SessionEngage.bozeman.net/udc Project Resource Work Session Outline• Presentation by staff on IssuesDistrict ReplacementMidblock BoundariesPublic Requested Zone Map AmendmentsUses Within Districts• Questions by City Commission• Public Comment• Direction by City Commission Background Main Street Correct inconsistencies between the future land use map and the zoning map.  Revise zoning map in accordance with consolidated zoning districts. Additional edits in Oct 2024 to split RA into the RA/RB zoning districts. Remove the UMU and RO districts and replace with districts compliant to future land use map and local development context.  Create the B‐3C district and reflect on the map.  Targeted changes from B2 to B2M.  Remove where practical mid‐block zoning district boundaries, especially those between non‐residential and residential districts, so that district boundaries fall on streets or other physical separators. Change the zoning for public parks and public schools not already shown as PLI to PLI at the request of the agencies who oversee those facilities. Changes Reflected on Proposed Zoning Map Direction Items District Replacements Commission Work Session Prior Direction• Remove Urban Mixed Use (UMU)• Remove Residential Office (RO)• Merge RS, R1, and R2 districts • Create Downtown Mixed Use Core (B-3C) district Proposed DraftCurrent CodeResidential LowR-AResidential Suburban District R-S Residential Low-MediumR-BResidential Low Density District R-1 Residential MediumR-CResidential Moderate Density District R-2 Residential HighR-DResidential Medium Density District R-3 Residential Manufactured HomeR-MHResidential High Density District R-4 Neighborhood Mixed-UseB-1Residential Mixed-Use High Density District R-5 Community BusinessB-2Residential-Office District R-O Community Mixed-UseB-2MResidential Manufactured Home Community District RMH Downtown Mixed UseB-3Neighborhood Business District B-1 Downtown Mixed-Use CoreB-3CCommunity Business District B-2 Residential Emphasis Mixed UseREMUCommunity Business District - Mixed B-2M Northeast Historic Mixed-UseNEHMUDowntown Business District B-3 Business ParkB-PUrban Mixed-Use District UMU Light ManufacturingM-1Light Manufacturing District M-1 Manufacturing and IndustrialM-2Manufacturing and Industrial District M-2 Public Lands and InstitutionsPLIBusiness Park District B-P Neighborhood Conservation Overlay DistrictNCODPublic Lands and Institutions District PLI Planned Development ZonePDZNortheast Historic Mixed-Use District NEHMU Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District NC Residential Emphasis Mixed-use District REMU Planned Development Zone PDZ Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts RMH District RMH, Residential Manufactured Housing District• New 2025 state law limitations (SB 252)o76-25-303. Limitations on zoning authority. (1) A local government acting pursuant to this part may not: (a) treat manufactured housing or factory-built housing units differently from any other residential units; • Individual manufactured homes already allowed in all residential districts• Expanded opportunity through site plan process• Consider alternate district designation on map Existing Manufactured Home Locations Proposed RMH District Locations on Current Version of Proposed Zoning Map Midblock Boundaries Existing MapProposed MapPLIR-AR-BRS S Black AveE Olive StExisting Zoning MapDraft Zoning MapB-3Example Before and After Zoning Map Survey Q19 ‐ Zoning district boundaries are normally set along streets, water ways, or other visible separations. Over time some zoning boundaries have been placed along property lines in the middle of a block. If the City moves boundaries so that they no longer divide a block, would you prefer a general approach to:Alternative methods:Zoning the entire block to the district that is the existing majority of block area (37.59%)Zoning the entire block to the more intensive zoning existing on the block (24.06%)Zoning the entire block to the less intensive zoning existing on the block (38.35%) Publicly Requested ZMAs Uses Within Districts Survey Q15 ‐ The proposed UDC would allow some commercial uses in the R‐D district (formerly R‐5). Some residents have expressed interest in allowing small, neighborhood‐scale businesses ‐ like a corner café, corner store or daycare ‐ in lower‐density residential areas such as R‐B and R‐C. Would you like neighborhood commercial to be an allowable use in R‐B and R‐C, similar to its allowance in R‐D? Q 16 ‐ If you said yes to the previous question, what type of commercial development would you like to see within a ¼ mile walk of your home? (select all that apply) Uses Within Districts - Housing HOUSING• Lots of housing variety – including all these kinds of housing -- already exist in Bozeman Definitions of Single-unit through Multi-unit dwellings are set in state law. Uses Within Districts Fraternity and Sorority Fraternity and Sorority Fraternity and SororityCurrent zoning map Commission Direction Commission Direction Requested District Replacement:A) Does the City Commission wish to designate different districts on areas where RO and UMU district are being replaced?B) 1.   Does the City Commission concur to proceed with removal of the RMH    district?2. Does the City Commission agree with redesignating existing RMH areas to the most similar alternate zoning district (likely RA)?Midblock Boundaries: A) Does the City Commission direct adjustments to further address midblock boundaries?B) Which of the three identified methods from the survey does the City Commission prefer to use to resolve midblock boundaries? Commission Direction Requested Public Requested Amendments to the Zoning MapA) Does the City Commission wish to consider individually requested zoningmap amendments as part of the UDC update?B) If yes, are there specific criteria to determine which to pursue, such ascorrection of divided parcels? Or a threshold of size?C) Does the City Commission wish staff to recommend additional mapamendments?Uses within DistrictsA) Does the Commission wish to expand the scope of non‐residential useswithin the residential zoning districts and in which districts? If so, does theCommission wish to impose any special limitations on them?B) Does the Commission wish to revise the number of homes allowed as amaximum in a single building in the RA and/or RB districts? If so, underwhat conditions?C) Does the Commission wish to distinguish fraternities and sororities fromgroup living? What standards does the Commission suggest be applied tosupport the distinction and establish criteria for approval? Link to Midblock Boundaries Zoning Map https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=301156&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN [external link] Report To: City Commission From: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Erin George, Community Development Director Subject: Unified Development Code (UDC) Update – Zoning Districts and Uses Within Districts Meeting Date: July 14, 2025 Memo Organization: General Background Zoning Map History Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts Areas for Commission Direction District Replacement Midblock Boundaries Public Requested Amendments Uses Within Districts Commission Direction Requested General Background Balancing the desire of incremental development and redevelopment with meeting the needs for housing for existing and relocating individuals, providing for employment, and enabling services to meet needs, all while considering how to keep Bozeman a desirable and livable community carries significant challenges. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 (BCP2020) [External Link] includes seven themes which consider these elements (listed below). We have long recognized that the Community Plan is inclusive of many goals, which sometimes creates tension among the various goals and their outcomes. That’s why, when the City considers zoning code amendments (such as this rewrite of the UDC), we evaluate whether on balance the amendments are consistent with the growth policy.  A resilient city  A city of unique neighborhoods  A city bolstered by downtown and complementary districts  A city influenced by our natural environment, parks, and open lands  A city that prioritizes accessibility and mobility choices  A city powered by its creative, innovative, and entrepreneurial economy  A city engaged in regional coordination Page 2 of 14 The BCP2020 addresses the fundamental tensions of growth. How do we maintain and respect existing developed areas and the people who live here and accommodate those who wish to join the community or whose needs have changed? Chapter One addresses “To Grow or Not to Grow” and “Does the City Have to Grow.” It also addresses implementation: “The City must balance many issues in approving urban development. Therefore, it is not unusual if there is some tension between competing priorities, even if there is no explicit contradiction of policy.” (p. 73) The UDC is a primary implementation tool of the Bozeman Community Plan (growth policy). With each revision of the growth policy in the past, the city made edits to the code to realize the community’s desires and implement the aims of the growth policy. The policy of prior City Commissions was to allow private landowners to initiate zone map amendments following adoption of a new future land use map; and the City rarely initiated map amendments. The recently passed Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA) requires the City to take action to correct mismatches between the future land use map and the zoning map. Zoning codes generally fall into two types: Euclidian and form-based zoning. Euclidean zoning is the separation of land uses by type—residential, commercial, retail, industrial, etc. —each into their own zones or areas within a city and subject to standards for those districts. Form-Based Code (FBC) is a means of regulating land development to achieve a specific urban form. The primary focus is on form rather than use as with a Euclidian approach. There are pros and cons to both approaches. Most communities, like Bozeman, employ a hybrid approach by utilizing a combination of Euclidian and form-based concepts to achieve the desired outcome and use the tool that best fits the need and intended outcome. The draft code relies more on FBC than the existing code. Both types rely on a zoning map to distinguish the locations of different zoning districts and correspondingly what standards apply to a specific parcel. No one standard adequately addresses all the concerns of the community or the characteristics of construction. The following graphic helps illustrate the way these concepts interact. Each identified subject (illustrated by a colored circle) allows for a range of actions or sets a standard. A project must meet each of the regulations. Only where a proposed project can meet all the standards may it be approved (illustrated by the orange shape). Each standard helps constrain the potential for excess in other standards. Not all standards correspond to the zoning map. For example, the watercourse setback and wetland protection standards are uniformly applicable throughout the city and do not change based on a zoning district or zoning map. To assist with clarity, the zoning map and regulations in effect today will be referred to as the “existing code” and the future zoning map and regulations which are in development will be referred to as the “proposed draft”. Page 3 of 14 Zoning Map History The City adopted zoning in 1935. The first zoning map for which the City still has a copy is from 1941. An archive of zoning maps is available [external link] as PDFs. The zoning map has been amended hundreds of times over the years since its adoption. At the beginning of the UDC update, the City Commission held two public work sessions to consider potential changes to existing residential and non-residential zoning districts. A work session was held on Oct 18, 2022 [external link] with discussion materials at [external PDF] to discuss residential zoning districts. An online public presentation called a Code Connect presenting the outcome of the meeting was held on Oct 27, 2022. The slides from the Code Connect are available on Engage Bozeman [external link] in the Presentation and Participation materials section, and at this link [external PDF]. The Community Development Board also held a work session on zoning districts on November 7, 2022 [external link]. A second work session was held on Feb 14, 2023 [external link] to discuss non-residential and mixed-use zoning districts with discussion materials at [external PDF]. A Code Connect presenting the outcome of the meeting was held on Mar 8, 2023. The slides from the Code Connect are available on Engage Bozeman [external link] in the Presentation and Participation materials section, and at this link [external PDF]. Based on the direction given, staff created a draft zoning map. Generally, the proposed draft UDC renames most residential zoning districts and consolidates and streamlines zoning districts to simplify the code. Revisions to the map were also made in October 2024 based on Commission direction to no longer include R-3 areas within the new RA district as part of revisions to the proposed RA district. The Engage Bozeman map viewer [external link] shows both the existing and the proposed zoning. A slider bar can be moved to show both maps for a site. Proposed zoning is on the left of the map and existing zoning is on the right of the bar. Page 4 of 14 Below are the names and labels for the different zoning districts in the existing code [external link] and the Oct 27, 2024 [external PDF] proposed draft (page 2-3). These districts are what are shown on the map. Move the vertical slider bar left and right to see the existing and proposed districts and the +/- buttons to zoom in and out. The double arrow button in the upper right corner of the map expands to fill the screen. The district legends are below the map. Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts Current Code Proposed Draft R-S Residential Suburban District R-A Residential Low R-1 Residential Low Density District R-B Residential Low-Medium R-2 Residential Moderate Density District R-C Residential Medium R-3 Residential Medium Density District R-D Residential High R-4 Residential High Density District R-MH Residential Manufactured Home R-5 Residential Mixed-Use High Density District B-1 Neighborhood Mixed-Use R-O Residential-Office District B-2 Community Business RMH Residential Manufactured Home Community District B-2M Community Mixed-Use B-1 Neighborhood Business District B-3 Downtown Mixed Use B-2 Community Business District B-3C Downtown Mixed-Use Core B-2M Community Business District - Mixed REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed Use B-3 Downtown Business District NEHMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use UMU Urban Mixed-Use District B-P Business Park M-1 Light Manufacturing District M-1 Light Manufacturing M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial District M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial B-P Business Park District PLI Public Lands and Institutions PLI Public Lands and Institutions District NCOD Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District NEHMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use District PDZ Planned Development Zone NC Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed-use District PDZ Planned Development Zone Map Amendments Commission Initial Direction: • Revise zoning map in accordance with consolidated zoning districts. This created about 131 edits to the zoning map initially, with additional edits due to the change in Oct 2024 to split RA into the RA/RB zoning districts. • Remove the UMU and RO districts from the code and replace on the map with districts compliant with the future land use map and the local development context. This created 42 edits to the zoning map. Page 5 of 14 • Correct inconsistencies between the future land use map and the zoning map. This created 14 edits to the zoning map that were not addressed under another edit. • Targeted changes from B2 to B2M. This created 8 edits to the zoning map. • Create the B-3C district and reflect on the map. This was only one change to the map. • Remove where practical mid-block zoning district boundaries, especially those between non-residential and residential districts, so that district boundaries fall on streets or other physical separators. Map Amendments Secondary: • Staff changed the zoning for public parks and public schools not already shown as PLI to PLI at the request of the agencies who oversee those facilities. This created 59 edits to the zoning map. Staff limited revisions to the initial draft zoning map to those above to be consistent with Commission direction. Staff can suggest additional revisions to the map. The City Commission will make the final decision with adoption of the final zoning map at the end of the UDC update project (following a Community Development Board recommendation as required by state law). A revised draft zoning map will be created incorporating direction from the City Commission on July 14th. There are small areas scattered across the zoning map that could be readily merged to adjacent zoning. For example, the commercial area at the N. 19th interchange has a mix of B1 and B2 in a very small area. Staff will not do these further amendments without Commission direction. The current map is a drawing that is superimposed over other information. The long-term intent with the zoning map is to transition to a parcel-based map. This means that streets will no longer be shown as zoned and will tidy up many small oddities and inconsistencies in district boundaries. This evolution in the map will not occur until the final map is settled and adopted. A parcel-based map will facilitate future editing and integration with municipal systems. Areas for Commission Direction This section describes specific actions taken regarding the zoning map and identifies issues that need to be resolved. The following section identifies specific questions staff requests the City Commission to address. District Replacement A) The proposed draft [external PDF] proposes to remove two zoning districts with corresponding changes to the zoning map. The current Urban Mixed Use (UMU) district is only presently applied to 1 parcel which has an approved PUD in place. The current Residential Office (RO) district is applied throughout the City. The RO district was intended to be a transition district between residential and non-residential areas and allows for both uses. The RO district has proved awkward to use and not effective. Newer mixed-use districts are better balanced and more fitting to current needs. The RO zoned areas have a variety of uses in place ranging from vacant property, apartments, mixed use buildings, manufactured home communities, and single homes. The draft zoning map [external link] shows the existing zoning including the RO district areas and the proposed replacement zoning that staff felt best matched existing conditions and the future land use map. This item has not spurred public concern during Page 6 of 14 engagement. No further direction is required if the Commission continues to support the original Commission direction to eliminate UMU and RO. B) The 2025 Montana Legislature passed Senate Bill 252 [external link] which was approved by the Governor on May 5, 2025. The new law may have unexpected consequences. This bill imposes new restrictions on all municipalities on how manufactured homes and factory-built homes may be regulated. “76-25-303. Limitations on zoning authority. (1) A local government acting pursuant to this part may not: (a) treat manufactured housing or factory-built housing units differently from any other residential units;” The proposed draft [external PDF] of the UDC from Oct 2024 carries forward from the current code the RMH, Residential Manufactured Home District, 38.210.060 (page 2-16). The RMH district is the only district where groups of manufactured homes can be placed on a single parcel as a manufactured home community, 38.300.020 (page 3-4). Individual manufactured homes can be placed on any residential lot in the city. Several types of housing, not manufactured homes, are also allowed in the RMH district as shown in 38.300.020 (page 3-4). Allowance for placement of individual manufactured homes on individual lots has been required by the state for many years but local governments could establish distinct standards for them. The state, since 1973 and ending this year, has required manufactured home communities to be reviewed as subdivisions. The most recent manufactured home community in the City completed final approval in 2000. No requests for the RMH district have been received as a zone map amendment since 1997. The City has for decades allowed multiple homes, that are not manufactured homes, to be placed on one parcel in all residential districts through the site plan process. Many examples of multiple detached or attached dwellings on single parcels are found throughout the community. A manufactured home meets the 2023 state adopted definition of a “single-unit dwelling” which is included in the proposed draft, 38.800.200 (page 8-31). “Single-unit dwelling. A building designed for one dwelling unit that is detached from any other dwelling unit.” Staff acknowledges that the existing developed manufactured home communities provide an important element of housing in the community. The City’s ability to influence their operations is limited. After reviewing the new law and the proposed draft, Community Development and Legal Staff recommend that to comply with the new state restrictions some revisions be made to the draft code. In all cases, development of property with groups of manufactured homes must be allowed in all districts on the same basis as other groups of single-unit dwellings through site plans. This expands the opportunity to create new large or small manufactured home communities through the standard site plan process in more places in the community. Staff recommends the RMH district be removed from the next draft of the proposed code and the draft zoning map be amended to replace RMH on the map with the next most similar residential zoning district. Such a change does not require any modification to the continued operation of existing manufactured home communities. Manufactured home communities would no longer be a separate use but a subset of single-unit dwellings approved, if proposed as multiple homes on a single site, as a site plan. Page 7 of 14 Some public comment from owners owning property proposed to be designated as RMH has requested that the property not be designated as RMH on the draft zoning map. A map of the RHM zoned areas on the present proposed zoning map is attached to the cover memo of this item. Midblock Boundaries The City has had a zoning map since at least 1941. The map has been edited many times and a cumulative effect has been to create zoning boundaries that don’t always follow the preferred boundary locations as outlined in 38.200.040 of the proposed draft [external PDF] (page 2-4). The proposed zoning map has been edited to remove some but not all midblock boundaries. Although the City strives to place zoning boundaries at visible boundaries, like streets, some midblock boundaries remain. However, not all midblock boundaries are problematic and require correction. An example of the before and after is shown below on the Chief Joseph Middle School area at Kimberwicke St. and Ferguson Ave. The zoning was put in place years before School District 7 purchased the property. The existing zoning map (top image) has three different zoning districts that cover part of the school site. The proposed zoning map (bottom image) shows how the school property and the adjacent park across Ferguson Avenue are proposed to be zoned as PLI on the draft zoning map. This corrects most of the issue, except for in the SW corner of the site. As there is no street to be a boundary, the district boundary occurs on a property line instead. This places the PLI district on a property line adjacent to the RA district. Existing zoning map – Chief Joseph Middle School Page 8 of 14 Draft zoning map – Chief Joseph Middle School Staff has reviewed the draft map and identified remaining midblock district boundaries between residential and non-residential zoning districts; and not separated by an open space. These have been the boundaries drawing the greatest public comment and concerns over the last few years. Non-residential to mixed-use districts or residential to a different residential are not called out on the map. The midblock boundaries shown on the proposed zoning map [external PDF] are outlined in red or yellow shapes (color adjusted for visibility). Staff has not called out midblock boundaries resulting from designation of a public park or public facility as PLI. The map is a large file and will be best reviewed on a larger computer screen. Due to file size, it may require several minutes to download. There are also public comments requesting map changes to address midblock district boundaries. Staff could proceed further to remove additional midblock zoning district boundaries, if Commission so directs. For example, the change to designate parks as PLI created a new small single parcel RC section near the intersection of Story Mill Road and E. Griffin Drive. This area could be designated REMU as is the adjacent property to the north and west. See image below. Page 9 of 14 In deciding to remove a midblock boundary there are three alternative approaches. The online public survey in April-May 2025 asked a question about this. Public responses were very close for the top two responses. See below for question and responses. Survey Q19 - Zoning district boundaries are normally set along streets, water ways, or other visible separations. Over time some zoning boundaries have been placed along property lines in the middle of a block. If the City moves boundaries so that they no longer divide a block, would you prefer a general approach to: The Community Development Board considered the midblock boundary issue at their July 7, 2025, meeting [external link]. The discussion on the UDC update begins at 32 minutes in the recording, public comment begins as 1:49:13 in the recording, and discussion on the midblock boundaries begins at 1:57:30 in the recording. The Board recommended that the Commission consider addressing further removal of midblock zoning district boundaries. After discussion, the Board indicated 4-1 their preference to address midblock boundaries by zoning the entire block to the district that is the existing majority of the area of the block. It was also discussed that this was general guidance and not direction on individual sites. Public Requested Amendments The City has received approximately a dozen public requests to modify the zoning on specific parcels as part of the UDC update. A file with hyperlinks to the requests is linked to the cover memo for this item. Some of the requests are for quite small areas and others for multiple blocks. Some are requesting corrections of zoning that divides a single ownership of land and others seek to change zoning of larger areas to greater or lesser intensity of uses. Some requests have received additional public comments in support. Districts: Purple – REMU Brown – RC Orange – B2M Yellow – RA Green - PLI Page 10 of 14 On May 19, 2025, the Community Development Board considered the issue of how to address requested amendments to the zoning map received as public comment during the UDC update. Video of the meeting [external link] is available and discussion regarding the zoning map amendments begins at 31:15 minutes into the recording. After discussion on various alternatives, the Board passed the following motion: “In connection with proposed update of its Unified Development Code, the City should undertake to consider only zone map amendments that meet one of two criteria: 1. Those amendments that have already been identified by the City and are set forth on page 2 of the Memorandum to us entitled Continued Discussion of Unified Development Code Public Input and Alternatives; or 2. other zone map amendments that have been proposed by citizens that are of a technical nature or are clearly reasonable in the eyes of the Community Development Department and very unlikely to be controversial among adjoining neighbors or the community as a whole. The City should deal with all other zone map amendments proposed by citizens in the normal course and apart from the consideration of the proposed update of its Unified Development Code.” The “already identified” amendments referenced in the motion are those listed after the zoning district chart on page 4 above. If the Commission accepts the City initiating zoning changes as part of the UDC update, Staff can recommend several options to resolve or lessen some community concerns that have been received through public comment. If the City Commission does not wish to include individually requested amendments with the overall UDC update, landowners may choose to submit a zone map amendment (ZMA) to pursue the same changes. ZMAs require payment of an application fee, and the submittal requirements include signatures from 51% of property owners in the area for which a change in zoning is desired. If the City Commission does wish to include individually requested amendments as part of the overall UDC Staff requests direction on which specific amendments to be added to the zoning map. Uses Within Districts Commercial in RA, RB and RC existing, proposed, suggested. The City has allowed for a variety of home-based businesses, including family and group daycare as required by the state, in residential zoning districts for many years. Special standards apply to home-based businesses as set out in 38.360.150 [external link] of the existing code. Some districts (R4, R5, RO) have allowed for more extensive commercial uses, such as professional offices and restaurants, than fit in the limits of home-based business. The proposed draft [external PDF], section 38.300.020 (page 3-4), allows some of these uses in the RC and RD districts under the Personal & General Service and General Retail categories and with some limitations. Section 38.300.020 of the proposed draft is attached to the cover memo for this item. During Supplemental Public Engagement, comments were received that some want a more expansive allowance of these uses into less intensively developed residential districts such as RB. See below for questions and responses. Some comments provided in the individual free form comments during the online survey this spring were in support of this expansion but expressed concerns about the scope and nature of what might be allowed. The change would authorize, but could not require to be constructed, the additional uses within specified zones. Division 38.320 (page 3-13) of the proposed draft sets standards for specific uses. This is the place where customized standards for individual districts could be created; especially sections 080 and 090. There are Page 11 of 14 already some restrictions on maximum size of commercial spaces or buildings by zoning district such as 1,500 sq. ft in NEHMU and 2,500 sq. ft. in RD; as well as some location restrictions. Additional limitations, such a prohibition on drive-through service could be added if deemed necessary. For context of building size, the Chase Bank at the corner of N 19th Ave and Tschache Lane is 9,300 sq. ft., the Eckroth Music building at the corner of Mendenhall and N 7th Ave is 3,450 sq. ft., and Rosa’s Pizza at Kagy and S. Willson Ave is 2,400 sq. ft. Survey Q15 - The proposed UDC would allow some commercial uses in the R-D district (formerly R-5). Some residents have expressed interest in allowing small, neighborhood-scale businesses - like a corner café, corner store or daycare - in lower-density residential areas such as R-B and R-C. Would you like neighborhood commercial to be an allowable use in R-B and R-C, similar to its allowance in R-D? The Community Development Board considered whether or not to recommend expanding non-residential uses in some residential districts at their July 7, 2025, meeting [external link]. The discussion on the UDC update begins at 32 minutes in the recording and discussion on additional uses begins at 2:19:50. The Board recommended that the Commission consider increasing allowed non-residential uses currently allowed in the RD district to also be included in the RC and RB and possibly RA districts. The Board further recommended careful consideration of any special standards, with particular care needed for allowed square footage limits to ensure adequate size for services to be functional and viable. Both the recommendations were endorsed 5-0. Q 16 - If you said yes to the previous question, what type of commercial development would you like to see within a ¼ mile walk of your home? (select all that apply) A map showing the location of the existing B1, B2, B2M, and B3 zoning districts and distance buffers at 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mile from them is linked to the cover memo for this work session. These distance buffers relate to walkability. In the Planning profession distances of a quarter mile or a half mile are typically used when referencing a walkable distance and 1 mile is quite suitable for biking. The map shows the physical locations Page 12 of 14 currently in place where various services can be established. A similar map will be created following Commission direction on possible district changes for the proposed districts zoning map. Number of dwellings allowed in a single structure in some residential districts. Section 38.300.020, Allowed Use Table, (page 3-4) in the proposed draft [external PDF] assigns uses to individual zoning districts. The number of homes allowed in a single structure generated much public comment. State law changes in 2023 require that after Jan 1, 2024, all zoning districts that allow a single detached dwelling also must allow a two- dwelling structure (duplex). This requirement is in place today. Staff is not aware of any application to create a duplex that would not have been allowed prior to this change in law. This carried forward in the proposed draft. The Montana Land Use Planning Act requires that Bozeman adopt at least five alternatives to encourage creation of additional housing (from a list of fourteen). Several of these alternatives allow for more than one home in a single building. Definitions of the type of housing is specified in state law. Public comment has encouraged greater allowance for multiple homes within an existing structure than might be allowed as new construction as a means to encourage rehabilitation and continuation of existing buildings. Public comment received later in the UDC update process has encouraged a greater reliance on the form, e.g. height, width, volume, of a structure rather than the number of dwellings as a decision point for what should be allowed where. Considerable public comment was received in 2023 regarding the number of dwellings allowed in a single structure and opposed expanding the number in some districts, especially the RA district. At the June 24th work session, [external link] beginning at 1:08:00 in the recording the City Commission discussed mass and scale tools. As part of the discussion, the City Commission directed staff to investigate the idea of a graduated square foot cap per structure which would constrain a maximum building size. That work is underway. Even with such a tool, it is necessary to consider the number of dwellings allowed per structure, per lot, or per acre by district as both the existing code and the proposed draft include such regulations. The number of dwellings allowed per acre is commonly referred to as “density” and is a typical development standard used by municipalities around the country. The proposed draft requires an increased minimum density compared to the existing code and does not include a minimum lot area per dwelling requirement. As discussed at the June 24th work session with the Commission, the existing proposed draft zoning districts have limitations on maximum building width and height that apply to all new construction. If the Commission wishes to allow a greater range of homes per structure, they may also establish additional standards for specific circumstances. Section 38.320.030 (page 3-13) of the proposed draft identifies limitations on residential uses specific to individual districts. This appears to be the location where any special provisions would best fit in the document. For example, the Commission could allow an increase in one or two increments in number of homes per structure as defined in the use table, 38.300.020 of the proposed draft (page 3-4), otherwise allowed in a district if the additional units were in an existing building and did not increase overall building size by x%. Some increase in size should be allowed to address reconfiguration, different exiting needs, and general rehabilitation of a structure. These revisions would likely only apply in the proposed RA and RB districts as the allowed uses in RC and RD would likely include as a default any additional flexibility that may be granted in RA and RB. The Community Development Board discussed this issue at their May 19, 2025, meeting and passed the following motion: Page 13 of 14 The Community Development Board recommends to the City Commission that it give consideration to 1) the number of dwelling units allowed by right in R-A or whether to rely instead on form based limitations on mass and scale, and 2) to give further consideration to employing square foot caps such as described in the public comment provided by Forward Montana intended to promote efficient land use, provide multimodal transportation options, create more affordable housing, promote the preservation of existing structures, and reuse of existing building materials as replenishing funds for the affordable housing fund. Some public comment has requested that the RB district be amended to allow up to 12 homes in a building with a single staircase accessing the units. The current limit is eight dwellings. This would be an adjustment to both number and configuration of maximum dwellings. These details could be established in 38.320.030.A of the proposed draft (page 3-13). The Community Development Board considered whether or not to recommend expanding the number of allowed dwellings per structure in some residential districts at their July 7, 2025, meeting [external link]. The discussion on the UDC update begins at 32 minutes in the recording and discussion on additional dwellings per building begins at 2:28:45 of the recording. The Board recommended that the Commission consider allowing up to 4 dwellings per building in the RA district for both renovations and new construction. The Board recommended that the Commission consider increasing the number of dwellings allowed per building in the RB but did not recommend a specific number. At this time the proposed draft limits dwellings per building in the RB district to eight. Both recommendations were made 5-0. Fraternity/Sorority. The City adopted the Group Living use in 2012. Group Living continues forward into the proposed draft [external PDF]. The use has its own parking and land area requirements and is allowed in all residential districts. It can be applied to new construction or to reuse of an existing building. In the UDC update completed in 2018, the City removed fraternities and sororities as separate use in zoning as it was duplicative to the group living use. All residential districts allow for a variety of shared living opportunities. Public comment has requested that the use be distinguished and returned to the code as a separate use and not be allowed in the RA district. As of writing this memo, staff has not identified an adequate basis to distinguish the fraternities or sororities from group living or a basis to set different standards for sororities and fraternities than other group living situations. If the Commission decides to pursue amending the UDC to create a new land use of Fraternities and Sororities, the Commission must make findings that identify a permissible legislative objective for distinguishing fraternities and sororities from other group residential uses. In doing so, the Commission should identify distinctions that are based on the use of land as opposed to findings that are based solely on the characteristics of the individuals who reside on the property. If the Commission decides to create a new land use of Fraternities and Sororities, the Commission will also need to identify the circumstances and criteria that will support review and possible approval of the use. Page 14 of 14 Commission Direction Requested District Replacement: A) Does the City Commission wish to designate different districts on areas where RO and UMU district are being replaced? B) 1. Does the City Commission concur to proceed with removal of the RMH district? 2. Does the City Commission agree with redesignating existing RMH areas to the most similar alternate zoning district (likely RA)? Midblock Boundaries: A) Does the City Commission direct adjustments to further address midblock boundaries? B) Which of the three identified methods from the survey does the City Commission prefer to use to resolve midblock boundaries? Public Requested Amendments to the Zoning Map A) Does the City Commission wish to accept individually requested zoning map amendment as part of the UDC update? B) If yes, are there specific criteria to determine which to pursue, such as correction of divided parcels? Or a threshold of size? C) Does the City Commission wish staff to recommend additional map amendments? Uses within Districts A) Does the Commission wish to expand the scope of non-residential uses within the residential zoning districts and in which districts? If so, does the Commission wish to impose any special limitations on them? B) Does the Commission wish to revise the number of homes allowed as a maximum in a single building and under what conditions in the RA and RB districts? C) Does the Commission wish to distinguish fraternities and sororities from group living? What standards does the Commission suggest be applied to support the distinction and establish criteria for approval?