Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-25 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - UDC draftFrom:Alison Sweeney To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC draft Date:Friday, November 7, 2025 1:41:06 PM Attachments:2025 BBC draft-UDC report.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 Mayor, Deputy Mayor and City Commissioners, I hope you will take some time to read the attached report on the draft UDC. This report is acompilation of the work prepared by over a dozen of our volunteers as well as coalition partners. We're grateful for the engagement done over the last year and we hope you will honor many ofthe positive changes to the draft that came out of that work. This report supports many of those positive changes, and proposes further adjustments to the draft that could make ourdevelopment code even more neighborhood friendly and environmentally responsible. Thank you for considering the content of this report. Alison B. Sweeney Bernadette's Handmade JewelryBozeman MT 406-404-5740alison-bernadettes.com RECOMMENDATIONS ON BOZEMAN’S DRAFT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE, FALL 2025 Prepared by members of the Better Bozeman Coalition and Community Partners Compiled by Alison Sweeney, Chair of the Better Bozeman Coalition TABLE OF CONTENTS Background and Intent ........................................................................................................ 1 Support for Resident-led Neighborhood Rezoning Proposals ............................................ 2 Unit Count in Residential Zoning Districts ........................................................................ 3 Zone Edge Transition Regulations ...................................................................................... 6 Argument Against Increasing Height in the UDC Update ............................................... 13 Regulation of Fraternities and Sororities .......................................................................... 22 UDC Recommendations from the Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC) ................................. 24 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 28 BACKGROUND AND INTENT After the City of Bozeman released its first draft of the revised Unified Development Code (here after the UDC) in the fall of 2023 using the services of Austin Texas based consultants Code Studio, residents from across Bozeman gathered to voice their opposition through many hours of oral public comment in front of the Community Development Advisory Board. This outcry was coupled with hundreds of written public comments against the draft submitted to the city online. The city wisely paused the update, and a second round of public engagement ensued. The contributors of this report want to express their thanks for the additional time and engagement efforts because we believe that the new draft released in September of 2025 includes many improvements that reflect the desires of a majority of residents. We respectfully submit the recommendations in this report to the City of Bozeman with the intent that city staff, and elected officials will consider these additional modifications for incorporation into the draft before its final adoption. This report contains no references to the draft UDC section 38.240.020 regulating development within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Since this section of code is undergoing its own update separate from this draft, and is of the utmost importance to the community as a whole, we intend to give it our full attention at such time as code changes are presented by the consultants, Community Planning Collaborative. 2 SUPPORT FOR RESIDENT-LED NEIGHBORHOOD REZONING PROPOSALS Since the pause on the UDC update two neighborhoods located within the conservation district have spent hundreds of hours educating themselves on the implications of their existing and proposed zoning designations. They have organized themselves with a majority of residents in support of rezoning in the UDC update, and authored professional and compelling reports detailing their rezoning requests including how the requested zoning meets the requirements laid out in state law, the Bozeman Community Plan (a.k.a. Growth Policy, henceforth to be called the Land Use Plan) and other guiding documents. These proposals were submitted to the City of Bozeman in the spring of 2025, at the invitation of the Director of Community Development. Since their submission, and as of this writing, these two neighborhood rezoning proposals have elicited over 150 public comments in support from residents all across the city. Recommendations: • We urge the Community Development Advisory Board (acting in their capacity as the zoning commission) and the City Commission to grant both the Bon Ton and Centennial Park Neighborhood’s requested zoning in the final UDC update. The contributors to this document unequivocally support the neighborhood rezoning proposals submitted by both the Bon Ton and Centennial Park Neighborhoods in the spring of 2025. 3 UNIT COUNT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Upzoning The largest pushback against the initial draft update in the fall of 2023 came from residents who did not want their neighborhoods upzoned. The most public comment was received regarding the proposed R-A zoning district, which would have been the lowest density zoning district in the new code, but allowed for a 3-story, 8-unit apartment building on any residential lot in town subject to other parameters. The prevailing narrative was that our zoning code was restricting development, creating a housing shortage that drove up prices, and to combat this trend neighborhoods needed to be upzoned for redevelopment at higher density. Two years later we know that Bozeman’s zoning code is not restrictive, and that we have actually built housing at an astonishing rate. We have an unhealthy vacancy rate above 20% and housing is still unaffordable to most of our workforce. We also know that the largest zoning district by geographic area, current R-3, does in fact allow for Missing Middle Housing. “Missing Middle Housing “is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.” - https://missingmiddlehousing.com The Better Bozeman Coalition (BBC) has provided the community with numerous resources over the years demonstrating the negative impacts of upzoning, and positive alternative options for housing creation. These include our original Neighborhood Friendly Unified Development Code report submitted in May of 2024 and dozens of other presentations, peer reviewed studies, reports, books, articles, and podcasts available on the Resources page of our website, betterbozemancoalition.org. Additional articles written by our members, supported by data, are available on our blog page. The proposed draft of the UDC now open for public review lists the residential zoning districts as follows: R-A allowing 2 units on any lot, combines current R-S, R-1, and R-2 R-B allowing 8 units on any lot, replaces current R-3 R-C allowing 24 units on any lot, replaces current R-4 R-D with no limit on units, replaces R-5 4 The new R-A district proposes minimal upzoning for current R-S and R- 1 districts, while R-2 remains essentially the same. R-B proposes no upzoning to current R-3. R-C actually puts a limit on the number of units in a single structure at 24, where currently R-4 has no limit. R-D does not upzone current R-5. Additional Housing Creation Some positive changes in the proposed draft, that will allow for additional housing creation in existing neighborhoods, include the removal of minimum lot size requirements, and the incorporation of state law requiring that an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU), and manufactured housing be allowed everywhere a single-family home (SFH) is allowed. A unique compromise called the Existing Building Alternative has been incorporated into the proposed draft and was the result of collaboration between neighborhoods, city staff, and commissioners. This alternative proposes to allow an existing buildings over 35 years old to be subdivided into 4 units in the new R-A zoning district. While allowing for increased housing options in core neighborhoods, this provision also allows for the continuation of an historical precedent whereby many old Victorian mansions in historic districts were converted into multiple units in past times of economic hardship. As of the writing of this report, the community is largely supportive of the unit count proposed for residential zoning districts, and the city has received negligible pushback. The Existing Building Alternative is a wonderful provision that represents the best of a community coming together to address a need and the public is largely supportive as of the writing of this report. 5 New Parking Regulations One state law that will require us to be judicious in awarding increased density is HB 492 revising municipal zoning laws related to parking requirements. This law, signed by the Governor, removes the ability for municipalities to require parking in redevelopment of existing structures, for units under 1200 sq. ft. in new developments, or for deed restricted affordable housing developments. Legislators argue that developers will properly park their projects. Bozeman has been so abused by bad developments and bad actor developers that we cannot take this for granted. Special Interest Groups At the behest of some developers and architects, suggestions have been floated to resort to traditional upzoning by allowing 4 units by right in R-A, and 12 units in R-B. This is contrary to the vast amount of public sentiment expressed during the supplementary engagement conducted since the pause to the update in the fall of 2023. Recommendations: • We urge the Community Development Advisory Board (acting in their capacity as the zoning commission) and the City Commission to adopt the proposed draft UDC with the residential zoning districts as currently described (R-A at 2 units, R-B at 8 units, R-C at 24 units, and R-D without limit) • Keep the Existing Building Alternative as an option in the new R- A zoning district and do not upzone R-A to allow 4 units by right. • Remove minimum lot size requirements to allow for small infill housing and split lot construction as is proposed in this draft. • Re-examine the draft zoning map, and consider revising the map to accommodate potential negative impacts from SB 492 in areas with already high utilization of on-street parking. We risk increasing disfunction, making winter snow plowing more difficult, and compromising public safety if we do not judiciously regulate density with HB 492 in mind. 6 ZONE EDGE TRANSITION REGULATIONS These comments focus on the transitions provisions of section 38.260.070 of the draft UDC. We are excited to see that the city has added Zone Edge Transition (ZET) requirements when two zoning districts are separated by a right-of-way less than 60’ in width. Several residents spent a rainy Sunday out measuring the width of streets in different parts of the city using the method described in the City Engineering Manual pictured here. In the simplest situation, this measurement is from 1’ beyond the sidewalk on one side to 1’ beyond the sidewalk on the other side. Our measurements showed that many of the streets within the older sections of downtown are less than 60’ wide while newer streets recently constructed are typically over 60’ wide. The understanding that a street, when less than 60’ wide, is not enough to mitigate the harmful effects of disproportionate mass and 7 scale from high intensity development is encouraging and much appreciated. Appropriate ZET’s are one way the City of Bozeman can conserve its historic resources and the existing character of the older areas of town. These ZET requirements are especially important in areas where a National Register Historic District abuts a high-density district. The setbacks, height stepbacks, and landscaping requirements preserve the charm of Bozeman’s neighborhoods and the livability of the area, allowing light and air to circulate. Imagine the redevelopment that could occur in the image below. This is the intersection of S. Tracy and E Curtiss looking east. The right-of-way here measures from 57’ 9” to 58’ 1” wide. Streets are not a uniform width in the older areas of town. The parcel on the left is proposed to be upzoned to B-3 in the draft UDC. This entire area is within the South Tracy/South Black Historic District. Zoning sends a signal about what is desired in an area. B-3 zoning sends a very different signal than current R-2. We have seen redevelopment in the B-3 zoning district where it abuts lower intensity R-2 (R-A in the new draft). Our Growth Policy says we should learn from our mistakes: R 1.1 Be reflective: use past experience to inform future decisions. 8 This should never be allowed to happen again. The right-of-way pictured above, measures only 56 ft (1 ft beyond the sidewalk). Transition 1b pictured below, should apply. 9 Other areas to consider might be where NEHMU abuts R-A as shown here. This right-of-way is measured at 57’. Transition 1a. should apply. Transition 1a: 10 Additionally, transition 1a. should apply across W. Villard at the intersection of 5th, where current R-5 abuts R-3 (draft R-D and R-B respectively) shown below. This right-of-way measures only 54’ 2”. W. Villard at the intersection of N. 5th looking west. A clear visual on the updated zoning map indicating which streets are narrower than 60’ will be important information for both existing residents and buyers looking for redevelopment parcels. In fact, a delineation of all borders where ZET’s will be required is recommended. It could be as simple as a thick colored border between zones as shown in this image below. 11 The thick blue line between zoning districts delineates where a transition regulation kicks in. Notice between B-3C and B-3 no transition is required, but between B-3 and R-A it does. Since S. Bozeman measures only 55 ft 4 inches, it will require a transition across the right-of-way. Delineating the zoning map in this manner leaves no confusion as to development entitlement on either side. We are a city of 60 thousand, not 600 thousand. We can afford to maintain livability, and the value of our historic districts, through appropriate Zone Edge Transitions while still meeting the needs of our growth. How do we want our City to look, feel and function? 12 Recommendations: • Include the engineering diagram above, that demonstrates how a right-of-way is measured, in the UDC for ease of use. • Some concerns over equity in development rights have been raised by architects. In response we suggest that the additional setback and stepback and landscape requirements be triggered if the proposed development on the subject lot is taller than the wall plate height limit of the adjacent lot. • Transition requirements should apply equally to the front or side of subject lots and buildings. • Do NOT get rid of the landscape component for ZET’s, but maybe some alternative could be allowed for locations on the north side of structures where no sunlight will be available. Public art installations with decorative hardscape or minimal shade tolerant plantings could be workable. • Clearly delineate on the zoning map where ZET’s are required. This could be as simple as a thick colored border between zones. Landowners need to be able to make determinations when buying a property or when a proposed project comes along. • No brightly lit signs should be allowed to face zones across streets, lot lines, or alleys, where transition regulations apply. • Where transition regulations apply across alleyways, they need to include requirements that the subject lot use opaque balcony screening, and letterbox windows. • Garage doors in projects massive enough to trigger transition regulations should not be sited facing lower intensity residential zones. If they are sited there, either as allowed by code or through a deviation or variance process, clear doors must not be used and any lighting must face down, meeting dark sky requirements. • Tree landscaping requirements should be added to alley ZET’s. Columnar aspens can fit in the 5’ setback listed and would help with the transition. Alleys are typically 14’ across or less. • We request that there be some type of ZET regulation required between the proposed R-A/R-B and R-C districts due to the drastically different types of construction allowed. • We recommend that when a ZET applies to a property, this information should also be noted in any public notice about the property. 13 ARGUMENT AGAINST INCREASING HEIGHT IN THE UDC UPDATE Few, if any, updates to the Unified Development Code (UDC) will have a greater negative and irreversible impact on Bozeman than increased height allowances. Higher, denser development doesn’t make sense for Bozeman. Taller buildings are not better for the people, and Bozemanites don’t want them as hundreds clearly relayed in the City’s own UDC engagement report. Increasing building heights was actually among the least popular options when discussed during the UDC open houses as seen in the graphic below. For ease of identification the Better Bozeman Coalition created the comparison below for City staff, commissioners and the public. 14 Height and Density do not Create Affordable Housing. Two such recent examples include: 714 E Mendenhall Street: Condos in this five-story building near Main Street were sold in 2024 and 2025. Listed sold prices for 2- to 4-bedroom units ranged from around $2 million to $5.5 million. The Henry: In late 2024 and throughout 2025, over 60% of the 44 luxury residences in this six-story condominium building were sold. Specific sales prices for the individual units were not publicly disclosed, but they were marketed in the luxury price range. Height and density do not translate to affordability as these developments, and many others have already illustrated. Increased height allowances in the UDC will not address a growing problem, so why promote it? 15 At a lecture hosted by the Better Bozeman Coalition, Professor Patrick Condon, a Professor at the University of British Columbia who has over 40 years of experience in sustainable urban design and has published 4 noteworthy books on how to design and build sustainable communities, explained how many towns and cities across the US have proven that an increase in supply does not necessarily lead to a decrease in housing prices. How We Set Value. The ratio between land value and building value does not dilute when we build higher to increase density. Therefore, when a 2000 sq ft single story home valued at $1.2m is replaced by six 2000 sq ft apartments, those apartments are not each worth $200k but $1.2m a piece. We have not made each apartment more affordable but rather, have created more unaffordable housing which not only exacerbates the lack of middle-income housing, but drives up property taxes for neighbors given the new value of the larger building. Even previous local officials understand this direct impact on inflated land value. As former mayor Jeff Krauss said in his public comment at the special commission meeting on July 14th, 2025, “When you set the development entitlement, you set the price.” So how do you prevent this? Leveraging Height for Community Benefit Professor Condon points to a creative way in his July 2024 article in the Tyee. “A more direct model is flat-out “density bonusing” for affordable housing. Municipalities can simply institute a requirement that a certain percentage of new units are perpetually affordable for households making average regional income and below. This requirement puts downward pressure on land price. If developers know they can’t build market-priced units for global buyers on a certain parcel of land, they won’t bid up its price. The price of the zoned-for-affordable land will adjust to the lower profits that can be made.” Economists suggest that we should not increase allowed building height without demanding something in return. Cameron Murray, in his 2024 paper published in the journal Housing Policy Debate, titled Land as Airspace: How Rezoning Privatizes Public Space (and Why 16 Governments Should Not Give It Away for Free) articulates that airspace is actually a public asset. “Rezoning to higher density, therefore, involves the transfer of a property right—to volumetric space and a right to a different use—from the public to an existing private landowner, who formerly owned a different set of property rights at a location.” The loss of viewshed and sunlight is expressly felt by Bozeman residents. Therefore, we should not increase height allowances anywhere in the UDC update. The City’s updated Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) that grants extra height in exchange for affordability is exactly what these two experts say we should be doing. Commercial Space In mixed use developments, taller buildings do not lead to more affordable rents for small business owners. Small shops meant to serve locals (the so-called deli’s, dentists, local restaurants and other small business owners specified in the UDC) cannot afford rent in these new, expensive buildings. Rentals for prime space on Main street have gone up 50% in the last 5 years with an average price of $45/ sq ft, almost 2x the national average (see Offices.net article). In the new Northwest Crossing development, a retail pad on Dayspring Avenue recently leased for $50 sq ft. Not surprisingly, the 3000 sq ft space was leased by a major fast-food chain since no local restaurateur could afford the $12,500/mo. rent (space leased by Charter Realty and Development). The greater Bozeman area will not achieve “walkability” through taller buildings and increased density. It will just lead to further congestion. Cramming more people into downtown and the surrounding area (like the proposed B-3 zone) will not make Bozeman more walkable. Retail Don’t just give it away! Leverage height for community benefit! Our AHO will be much more effective if height limits are more restrictive to begin with. 17 stores are for the most part located on the street level, so by building taller buildings and increasing residential space in this area, we exacerbate the existing parking and congestion issues. Many locals already avoid downtown due to traffic woes. Who are we building this for? Nothing says this has to be tall - or dense. It just has to be planned intelligently and strategically. Create retail space where there is already residential housing. Cluster smaller, affordable retail space together. The Cannery District is a good example of this type of zoning and design. Many of the tenants occupying the small cluster of retail spaces in the Stoneridge Square Subdivision (south of REI) are local businesses, as are the tenants of the Mill Town Loop in Four Corners. Both of these commercial areas are surrounded by residential neighborhoods and provide a wide breadth of services to residents. And let’s be honest, 6 months of the year it is often too cold to walk anywhere in this county. Between Dec 1 - June 1 the average temperature is 35 degrees. This dips down to -43 degrees, with the average temps for Dec/Jan of 2024-2025 being 21 degrees. Your average Bozemanite may circle the dog park but they are not looking to spend a significant amount of time walking around town. The elderly and families with young children in particular, are not going to walk to the grocery store or other destinations in these conditions. Solar Access Increasing allowed building height in the UDC to incentivize redevelopment into taller buildings jeopardizes the City’s goal of 100% clean electricity by 2030 by potentially shading current rooftop solar energy generation. The BBC’s 2024 inquiry of NorthWestern Energy showed that there were 2217 grid-tied net-metering customers in Bozeman with an installed production capacity of almost 20 Megawatts! This number has grown in the last 18 months. This significant amount of solar electricity generating capacity has been installed by private owners in Bozeman. Because it is tied to an existing electrical grid, it now becomes a If the goal is reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), then we recommend incentivizing or requiring small scale commercial zoning dispersed throughout different neighborhoods. 18 contributing public resource. Protecting it provides maximum benefit across both public and private sectors. There are numerous other systems producing solar thermal energy, which usually offsets natural gas usage and further reduces the carbon footprint of our buildings. Bozeman has an ambitious goal of using 100% clean electricity by 2030. That is fast approaching. Residential and commercial solar electric generation on privately owned buildings is contributing significantly to this goal. While the latest UDC draft supports this effort by making the installation of renewable energy generation even easier, it overlooks the need to now protect it. Much of this private investment is now at risk because of increased height allowances. As global average temperatures rise, Bozeman will see an increase in electricity demand for air conditioning during the summer months. This will potentially be exacerbated by the increased heat island effect and degradation of our urban forest through increased densification (as has happened in Boise, Idaho). Therefore, electricity generated at the time of this increased demand will be even more valuable than it is today. The Value of a Viewshed Taller buildings ruin sweeping, panoramic views, destroying the charm and beauty of Bozeman as well as property values. Montana has been named “The Last Best Place” for its sheer natural beauty and expansive mountain views, but in some areas that is slipping… quickly. One aspect that makes Bozeman so special, and a prime reason people are attracted to it, is the stunning views of the mountains from almost everywhere in the city. By not increasing allowed height in the UDC, we will avoid increasing the risk of shading to the existing 20 MW of installed solar electricity generation capacity within the built environment, thereby helping the city reach its goal of 100% clean electricity by 2030. If we continue to zone farmland for high density, and upzone existing neighborhoods for high density, soon only the wealthy will have access to the views we once all enjoyed. 19 The aesthetic impact has a direct monetary impact. Blocking a single- family home’s view can have a large impact on the value of that home. The new Fowler project is projected to reduce the neighboring Harvest creek houses (“affordable housing” by Bozeman pricing standards) by $100k a piece according to local real estate agents at a recent community meeting. If you look at the map, RD (R5 - residential high) is peppered across the valley, maximizing the number of single-family residences that would be impacted. And these are areas that don’t have old, large trees to soften the impact. One such example is Baxter Meadows West. As you know, July 2025, the City Commission approved the annexation and zoning of land west of Baxter Meadows West for a mix of R-3 (medium-density) and R-5 (high-density) housing. The R-5 zoning along Baxter Lane, directly abuts the R-1 zoned, single-family homes of Baxter Meadows West. Time will tell the impact of these taller, neighboring buildings on the home prices of existing single-family homes, but if the past is a precedent, it will not be positive. Recommendations: Cap R-A structures at 34 ft total allowed building height • The state does not mandate a minimum or maximum height in residential zoning districts. With a wall plate height of 22 ft in this draft, 34 ft total height is the maximum height we should allow. • There is a good argument for a lower overall height than 40 ft because of the way the wall plate regulation is calculated. A gambrel roof could lead to a huge building in spite of the intention of the wall plate regulation. Coupled with only a 5 ft set back this leads to out of scale development. • 6 major metropolitan areas have height restrictions of 30ft or lower (Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Austin, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City). • 34 ft will allow for a 12/12 roof which sheds snow well and is perfectly pitched to maximize solar incidence at our latitude. Cap R-C at 40ft, while allowing mixed use structures 45 ft • With RC containing no wall plate height regulation, there is nothing managing the mass and scale in this district other than 20 total height. In flat roof construction which will be the most common type utilized in this district, 40 ft is plenty to allow for the construction of a 24-unit apartment building. • Since some commercial use is proposed to be permitted in this zoning district, allow up to 45 ft. for construction for mixed use portions of the building only, in order to accommodate a taller first floor for commercial use. • Current R-4 zoning (to become R-C in the new draft) allows a flat roof at 40 ft. so capping total allowed height at this limit is maintaining consistency. Cap R-D residential structures at 50 ft, while allowing mixed use structures 55ft • With RD containing no wall plate height regulation, there is nothing managing the mass and scale in this district other than total height. In flat roof construction which will be the most common type utilized in this district, 50 ft is plenty to allow for the construction of an apartment building. • Since commercial use is permitted in this zoning district, allow up to 55 ft. for construction for mixed use portions of the building only, in order to accommodate a taller first floor for commercial use. • Current R-5 zoning (to become R-D in the new draft) allows a flat roof at 50 ft. so capping total allowed height at this limit is maintaining consistency. Cultivate B-1 as a truly neighborhood scale commercial zone • Do not increase the allowed square footage in a commercial space in B-1 from 5,000 to 10,000 sq ft. This zoning district is meant to be neighborhood supportive business, not high intensity commercial. Most local shops can’t afford these large, expensive spaces. • In order to be more compatible with neighborhoods, reduce the overall height allowed from 45 ft to 30 ft. This would remove the necessity for zone edge transition regulations to apply in this district as it would be compatible in mass and scale with lower intensity neighborhoods. • While this may be a decrease in allowed height from the current code it will NOT create a large number of non-conforming structures in existing B-1 zoned areas and it could encourage the proliferation of much needed neighborhood scale commercial in outlying parts of town. (If there are any structures currently taller than 30 ft, Montana code and our UDC make ample 21 provision for continued use, maintenance and renovation of non- conforming structures). • Additional height could be granted in exchange for affordability in upper story residential units. Don’t just give away the height! • While the minimum lot width of 15 ft in the proposed draft UDC is great, the allowed building width of 125 ft is much too large for a neighborhood friendly commercial building. Reduce this by half if not more. Again, any non-conforming structures will be grandfathered in and smaller scale buildings will make this zoning designation more attractive to newly developing neighborhoods. Comply with SB 243, but do not exceed it without requiring affordability in exchange • SB 243 prevents Bozeman from imposing height restrictions in the B-3 zone lower than 60 ft. B-3 currently caps height at 70ft. We should not increase allowed height to 90 ft as proposed in the latest draft. This is gifting a public resource to private owners as detailed by economist Cameron Murray. • B-P zoning designation is proposing to allow up to 80 feet in some cases, though state law only mandates 60ft. Since commercial and residential are limited uses, the need for additional feet is not justified. Any additional height should be leveraged for affordability if permitted at all. • Since we do not have a housing shortage, but we do have an affordability problem, grant extra height ONLY through Professor Condon’s “density bonus in exchange for affordability!” Our current Affordable Housing Ordinance does this. • Bozemanites have said no to increased height time and time again. If it is to be allowed at all it must be leveraged for affordability. Require developers to plant taller, fast-growing trees in zones with taller building allowances. • Establish a ratio for tree height so that taller, more mature trees must be planted in zones with higher density and height allowances. • Work with The Bozeman Tree Coalition to identify a list of species that thrive in our climate and grow relatively quickly. 22 REGULATION OF FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES Progress Has Been Made on this Issue This section includes content submitted by others from the University Neighborhood who have long experience with the regulation of Fraternities and Sororities (F&S). We include it here for additional support. The draft UDC now contains a definition for F&S which it did not contain in the 2023 version. Another positive addition to the proposed draft is that it now addresses the need for an assembly space onsite for F&S, and requires that space to accommodate 90% of enrolled members with a minimum of 40 members. The draft also contains a requirement for the site of new and relocating chapter houses to have an additional 5 parking spaces beyond what is required generally for other Group Living uses. Opportunity for Further Improvement Greek life is an integral part of the college experience for many. F&S should be able to enjoy that life, while neighborhoods also have a reasonable expectation of peace and predictability. F&S chapter houses are different from other types of Group Living, such as the Reach House on N. Tracy and the HRDC Co-op on N. 15. Really, they are event centers, where some members live, and all members gather often with friends. These activities align with the UDC definitions for Amusement & Recreation, Meeting Hall & Arts & Entertainment. Under UDC Allowed Residential Uses, none of these three uses are allowed. Greek Way was set up originally to accommodate new and relocating Greek chapter houses. There are currently 2 fraternities on the west side of the street. We recommend that in the near future, the city and the new MSU President, Brock Tessman, along with MSU staff, need to get together & discuss allowing Greek Way to have other F&S houses locate along the street, as it was originally intended. To share a While these are meaningful additions to alleviate what could potentially lead to further conflict in existing neighborhoods, we believe a few adjustments would improve outcomes for all parties involved. 23 neighborhood perspective, neighbors are willing to be part of this discussion. Until those arrangements can be completed, we have some suggested edits and requests that would apply to new and relocating Greek Houses only, and could help prevent further conflict in the community and demonstrate we’ve learned from past experiences. Recommendations: • Since the primary use of a Greek House is not actually residential, but closer to Amusement & Recreation, Meeting Hall & Arts & Entertainment, give them a separate classification under Group Living as Billings and Missoula do. • Given this use, disallow new and relocating Fraternities and Sororities (F&S) in residential zoning districts or, if the commission lacks the will to do this, allow this use only in R-C and above. • Since the average membership of Greek Houses for MSU in 2025 is 83, and they are growing every year, the requirement for internal assembly space should be adjusted to accommodate 90% of their enrolled membership at the time of use approved by the city, but not less than 70 members, rather than 40. • The size of assembly space required for new and relocating F&S should be based on the size of 1 room not multiple rooms sq footage added together. Change the UDC draft wording to be just ONE Space not multiple spaces(s). • Increase the required number of guest parking spaces to 8 (instead of 5) to better accommodate extra vehicles during meetings, events & parties. 24 UDC RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BOZEMAN TREE COALITION (BTC) This section includes content submitted separately by the Bozeman Tree Coalition and has been included here for additional support. Recommendations in green. The BTC is pleased to see some of their previous suggestions accepted but also concerned that some important existing environmental codes remain unimproved or were weakened with updated changes. Please review the following suggestions along with their justifications and consider adding them to the 2025 UDC update. Division 38.540. – Landscaping Sec. 38.540.010.- Purpose and intent. BTC suggested text (Purpose and Intent paragraph): The process of development, including possible alteration of the natural topography and vegetation, and creation of impervious cover can have a negative effect on the ecological balance of an area. It is pertinent to the public interest, health, and welfare that Bozeman’s unique natural beauty and environment be protected through preservation and conservation efforts including but not limited to tree protections, diversity of vegetation throughout the city, enhancing aesthetic character of the community, watershed health, and other ecologically balanced practices that are consistent with those community goals. It is the intent of this division to promote and protect the city’s natural environment while respecting individual rights to develop, maintain, and enjoy private property to the fullest possible extent consistent with the public interest, health, and welfare. These regulations are adopted as part of this chapter for the following specific purposes: Original Purpose and Intent paragraph (for comparison): The process of development, with its alteration of the natural topography and vegetation, and creation of impervious cover can have a negative effect on the ecological balance of an area by causing or accelerating the processes of runoff, erosion and sedimentation. The economic base of the city can and should be protected through the preservation and enhancement of the area's unique natural beauty and environment. Recognizing that the general objectives of this division 25 are to promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, these regulations are adopted as part of this chapter for the following specific purposes: Division 38.740 Plan Review. Sec. 38.740.090. - Plan review criteria. It is the opinion of the BTC that the following codes under Plan Review Criteria do not deliver the community’s desired outcomes with the updated language. We suggest that the original UDC text be reinstated with the addition of definitions to support the City’s planners and help developers understand what is expected of them. Design review will always have a certain amount of subjectivity to it and that is where planners can depend on definitions and the growth policy to guide developers to the meet the City’s desired outcome of protecting its unique beauty and natural environment. New UDC draft text: 38.740.090.6. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including: 6.a. “Compliance with standards for architectural design, building mass, landscaping, historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration;” Original UDC text: 38.740.090.6. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including: 6.a. “Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural design, building mass, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical character, orientation of building on the site and visual integrations;” By removing “Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to”, and “neighborhood identity”, developer obligations to protect the unique natural beauty and environment of the city have been effectively removed along with the protection these qualities bring to the City’s economic base as emphasized in Landscape 38.540. The BTC requests the original language be reinstated with the addition of definitions for “compatibility”, “sensitivity to”, and “neighborhood identity” in section 38.800 of the UDC draft. Used together with the definitions below, it is clear what “compatibility with, and 26 sensitivity to”, mean when addressing how a new development or building will fit in the existing environment and neighborhood. This will support planning staff and inform developers when planning their design. Suggested definitions to add to UDC 38.800: Compatibility with- “work together in harmony because of well- matched characteristics” (Dictionary.com). Sensitivity to- “having or showing concern for a specified matter” (Merriam -Webster.com) in this case- the immediate environment and the adjacent neighborhoods. For example, new developments should not overpower the adjacent neighborhood with much larger buildings, strongly different designs, or the removal of healthy, mature vegetation in desirable locations. Neighborhood identity- includes the overall architectural and urban design; the layout and appearance of streetscapes, landscaping, and public spaces; the demographic composition; the local businesses and amenities; historical and cultural heritage reflected in the neighborhood. (Opulands.com) New UDC draft text: 38.740.090.6. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including: 6.c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in relation to existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration; Original UDC draft text: 38.740.090.6. Conformance with the project design provisions of article 5, including: 6.c. Design and arrangement of elements of the plan (e.g., buildings circulation, open space and landscaping, etc.) in harmony with existing natural topography, natural water bodies and water courses, existing vegetation, and to contribute to the overall aesthetic quality of the site configuration; (Underlined emphasis by BTC) 27 The current UDC draft text of 38.740.090.6.c. has changed “in harmony with” to “in relation to”, and removed “existing” from “existing vegetation”. In “harmony with” means something very different from “in relation to”. “If things are in harmony, they seem right or suitable together.” (dictionary.cambridge.org) Whereas the phrase “in relation to” is often used to compare size, shape, or position of things (merriam- webster.com). Additionally, by removing “existing” from “existing vegetation” the reader (planner or developer) has no idea which vegetation is being considered and the existing vegetation is what is important here, especially in wooded or riparian areas, rather than newly planted vegetation. We recommend reinstating the language from the original UDC to include the phrase “in harmony with” and “existing vegetation” in order to clearly communicate what is expected. 38.740.090. Plan Review Criteria. 7. Conformance with environmental and open space objectives set forth in articles 4, article 5, article 6, including: New UDC text: 7.a. Stormwater controls; Original UDC text: 7.a. The enhancement of the natural environment through low impact stormwater features or removal of inappropriate fill material; Changing the text to “Stormwater controls” only, removes the important discussion between planners and developers to consider the benefits of enhancing the natural environment through low impact stormwater features even in high density urban development. These areas can improve groundwater recharge, be included in the City’s natural open spaces, and protect existing wet areas that may have existing native trees and bird habitat and would support the City’s goals of sustainability and water conservation measures as outlined in various City plans. We recommend more robust language in the updated UDC for this section in order to encourage groundwater recharge and the preservation of existing native trees and naturally occurring wet areas. 28 New UDC 38.410.010.B. Natural environment. The design and development of all land uses must be properly related to topography, and must, to the extent possible, preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, and other existing vegetation. As written, this code has been ineffective at protecting the natural environment—and protecting the natural environment is what its authors clearly intended. The most egregious example is HomeBase Partner’s Canyon Gate development, where in 2023 HomeBase received City approval to regrade the entire 24 acres and subsequently bulldozed all trees (approximately 250) and existing vegetation, removed all the topsoil, and lost all of the natural terrain and drainage. It is NOT the only example of this occurring. We recommend removing the phrase, “to the extent possible” in order to ensure that city staff and developers need to discuss how best to protect the natural topography, rather than operating from the assumption that nothing needs to be protected. CONCLUSION The many contributors to this document submit the recommendations herein with the hope that they may inform elected officials and city staff in making additional neighborhood and environmentally friendly improvements to what is already a better draft Unified Development Code. We ask you to honor the requests of neighborhoods who have organized to collectively propose zoning changes. It is important to plan for growth while acknowledging and protecting our collective cultural inheritance. The built environment is part of that cultural inheritance. These neighborhoods are asking for help in being responsible stewards of that resource for future generations. We wish to express our gratitude for the multiple engagement opportunities open to the public over the last year. We feel confident public involvement has led to a development code that will allow for more housing creation while preserving the character of Bozeman’s neighborhoods and the natural environment we all cherish.