HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-29-25 Public Comment - M. Fitz - Re_ Public comment re_ UDC & manufactured homesFrom:michael.fitz92@aol.com
To:Erin George
Cc:Chris Saunders; Tom Rogers; Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Public comment re: UDC & manufactured homes
Date:Friday, July 25, 2025 8:27:57 PM
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 Erin,
Thank you very kindly for your prompt responses and excellent customer
service. I watched the entire 6 hours of the special 7/14/2025 meeting.
Honestly kudos to everyone who was there in-person from beginning to end –
it took me 3 days to watch it all. This is quite an undertaking. As an overall
comment – I am grateful that Bozeman is taking a hard look at density and
trying to say “yes” to development that produces meaningful additional
housing. I have only a few comments/suggestions, but I hope they are
helpful.
1 – Elimination of R-MH
I now better understand the ramifications of new state laws on this
issue, even though I appreciate the state’s intent. Commissioner Bode
made some really great comments on the loss of R-MH, and I echo her
concerns about the risks to MH parks (the most affordable housing)
ending up in R-A (the least affordable zone). What I would like to
suggest is perhaps adding a zone below R-A that is limited to:
1 story maximum
1000-1200sf maximum dwelling unit size
Minimum 2000 Maximum 5000 sf maximum lot size (whether
a park “lot” or a true platted lot)
No design standards
Applied to all existing MH parks, and an option for new parks
and small-home small-lot platted subdivisions
This would then allow for stick-built/modular/“tiny” (IRC-compliant)
homes in addition to HUD-code manufactured homes, but it would
limit the district to a truly de-facto affordable product due to those
limitations. R-A seems inappropriate because, as the Commissioners
noted, there would be no protection against MH parks being replaced
by luxury housing. A small-home zone, custom-tailored to the types of
homes MH parks typically have, would perhaps be prudent, and would
also allow for innovative new housing products that complement more
traditional manufactured homes.
2 – Mid-block zone boundaries
It seems there is a lot of momentum behind eliminating mid-block
zones, but to be honest I’m absolutely befuddled by this. Zone districts
should change mid-block – at least along alleys and rear lot lines.
When mid-block zoning is implemented properly, each street has its
own uniform character on both sides. To steal an example from
downtown Steamboat Springs Colorado, Lincoln Avenue has the
highest intensity zoning, and the zoning splits on the alleyways so that
Yampa Street has a lower intensity, as does Oak. Then the alley
between Oak/Pine Streets represents the transition to residential.
The downside of using streets as zone district borders is that it results
in each side of the street being potentially wildly different in character.
This can also result in more neighbor conflicts. Alleys are a great place
to transition zones because the back side of a restaurant/store (for
example) really doesn’t result in significant noise/nuisances to homes
on the other side – and a fence can always be built. Across a street, by
contrast – that is where conflicts occur. Residents fighting with
business over street parking, lighting, noise from outdoor
seating/events, etc.
It seemed the City really struggled with all the mid-block zone changes,
and that makes perfect sense. It’s like playing a board game with a
made-up rule that isn’t actually written on the box. Along property
lines – absolutely. Individual properties/parcels should not be split-
zoned. But beyond that – the character of the individual parcels and
their context with the surrounding area should be the driving force for
determining the appropriate zone. Not some well-intentioned desire to
make an entire block uniform.
3 – Zoned rights-of-way
This wasn’t mentioned in the meeting, but I believe it was in a prior
email. If I recall, the City is contemplating redoing their zoning map to
not show rights-of-way as zoned. I’d like to emphatically caution
against this. Rights-of-way absolutely have zoning. When a right-of-
way is created, a de-zoning action is not done. When a right-of-way is
vacated, a zone district is not applied. Other sections of municipal
code (frequently police) often have standards that say “in residential
zones…” or “in commercial areas…” often in reference to parking,
noise, etc. Zoning is not an attribute of parcels – it is an attribute of
the entire area within a municipality’s boundaries. Zoning for any
parcel should go to the centerline of the street, and should always do
so. I would heartily encourage this to be reconsidered if it is still on
the table. Note – Routt County, Colorado does this properly, but the
City of Steamboat Springs does not.
4 – Plate Height
Steamboat Springs, Colorado uses plate height, and it is one of the
most hated standards in the development community. Plate height is
not a Planning standard, it is architecture. Plates are invisible. When
you regulate plate height, you do not regulate the height of a building –
you regulate the height of the top of the wall framing. This results in
architects utilizing unusual truss designs to bear upon a lower plate to
get around the standard. It is also difficult to apply fairly in permit
reviews. While regulating height based on floors can also be
problematic, I do not think Plate Height is the most ideal solution. I
would suggest simply measuring the difference between the highest
point of the structure (typically the roof ridge), and the lowest point of
existing grade around the perimeter of the foundation. This is an
objective measurement because a builder cannot get around it with
unusual design, nor can he/she fill grade to bring the lowest point
higher. Existing is existing, and highest point is highest point.
5 – Housing in Industrial
This is an awesome idea, but I would suggest 2 things:
1 – Consider a higher percentage than 25%. 50% would allow
the upstairs of all industrial units to be used as residential,
instead of only ½ of the units. This is more fair to apply between
different unit owners.
2 – Regardless of percentage, consider design standards like
maximum unit size and separate entrances. If the maximum
unit size is too large, and the entrances are allowed to be shared
with the industrial unit below (same vestibule or same side of
building), what happens is rich people end up buying the units,
making them really fancy, and using the entire downstairs as a
toy garage. If the upstairs dwelling units are required to access
on the opposite side of the building from the industrial units
below, and have no internal connection, this is not a problem.
They should also be limited to 1200sf or smaller to ensure they
are not desirable as expensive industrial lofts.
Thank you very, very much for allowing me to make these comments.
Bozeman is grappling with a lot of change, and some people are more/less
willing to accept it. You guys are doing an amazing job and I hope you end
up with a great code in the end.
Sincerely,
-Michael
From: Erin George <egeorge@BOZEMAN.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:25 PM
To: Michael Fitz <michael.fitz92@aol.com>
Cc: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>; Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]Re: Public comment re: UDC & manufactured homes
Hi Michael,
The video links for all our Commission and Board meetings are available here. Just scroll down to
“past meetings” and click on City Commission and the 7/14 “special meeting” video link is there. I’d
suggest watching that before you submit written comments. The staff presentation starts at around
49:00 in the video if that is helpful. After that, Commission asks us a number of questions, then
public comment is opened. Following close of public comment around 4:08, Commission discussion
begins and the rest of the meeting is them providing staff with direction for our next amendments to
the draft code. Any direction needs to have a majority (3) Commissioners agree in order for staff to
act on it. The direction we received relating to RMH is to eliminate the district and replace with the
RA district. When a new version of the draft code and draft zoning map are ready sometime in early
fall, we will release them for public comment before Commission eventually votes on adoption.
To answer your question, of course you are welcome to email comments to us, but please also copy
comments@bozeman.net. That is our official public comment email that allows the City Clerk to
keep all comments for particular projects in one place. For your awareness, the public comment
emails are also sent to all City Commissioners, the City Manager and relevant staff.
Thanks again for your interest and perspectives!
Sincerely,
Erin George, AICPDirector | Community DevelopmentCity of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771P: 406.582.2260 | E: egeorge@bozeman.net |
From: Michael Fitz <michael.fitz92@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Erin George <egeorge@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>; Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Re: Public comment re: UDC & manufactured homes
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 Erin,
Thank you once again for sharing this with me! I will try to listen to a recording of
Monday's meeting once it becomes available. Would I be able to reply to this emaildirectly with a few comments/thoughts on the "Unified Development Code (UDC)
Update – Zoning Districts and Uses Within Districts" memo? I just had a few thoughts
to share. I am also quite impressed with the flexibility in the UDC that you have noted
as well.
Thank you,
-Michael
On Thursday, July 10, 2025 at 04:52:41 PM MDT, Erin George <egeorge@bozeman.net> wrote:
Hello Michael,
I’m reaching out to respond to a public comment email you submitted a few weeks ago relating to
manufactured homes and the UDC project. Your comment is well-timed because a bill was recently
passed in the 2025 Montana state legislative session (SB 252) relating to manufactured homes and
we will be discussing it (along with several other zoning topics) with City Commission on Monday July
14 at 1:00pm.
The packet for Monday’s meeting includes a description of this new bill, what our current code allows
and how our Legal staff suggest that we comply with the law. For instance, you might be surprised to
know that we currently allow individual manufactured homes to be built on any residentially zoned
parcel in Bozeman. We’re not proposing to change that, but the bill verbiage about not treating certain
housing types different than others means we need to discuss the possibility of eliminating the RMH
zone in favor of other residential zoning. I won’t reiterate all the memo information here, but please
know that staff and the Commission are aware of the important role that manufactured homes play in
housing affordability, especially in a high-cost market like Bozeman. Monday’s discussion will surely
touch on that, and will help Commission decide what direction to provide staff on how they would like
us to address the RMH district in relation to the new bill while also considering affordability, which is
often front and center in Bozeman policy discussions.
You can view the packet here; the cover memo includes broad UDC project context and if you scroll to
the bottom, the first attachment titled “CC July 14 2025 Zoning Districts and Uses.pdf” is where we get
into detail. Manufactured homes and the RMH district are discussed at the top of Page 6. Please give
that part of the memo a read, and if you’re interested, you can listen in to Monday’s work session
either online or in-person. Fair warning this issue is only one of several and the meeting is likely to be
multiple hours long. Public comment will be invited after the staff presentation and Commission’s
questions of staff. If you haven’t participated before, everyone who wishes to comment gets 3 minutes
each and we accept both in-person and virtual comments.
Thanks again for contacting the City to express your concerns and please let us know if you have
further questions.
Sincerely,
Erin George, AICP
Director | Community Development
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2260 | E: egeorge@bozeman.net |
City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution
(Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana
Code Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available
for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails
that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be
protected from disclosure under law.
City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II,
Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code
Annotated. As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public
disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain
confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from
disclosure under law.