HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-25 Public Comment - E. Talago - Re_ Application # 21381 Recommended UDC Update Edits from MidtownFrom:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Application # 21381 Recommended UDC Update Edits from Midtown
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2025 11:53:29 AM
Attachments:UDC Requests-Midtown Neighborhood.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.
The attached letter is submitted as public comment on behalf of the Midtown NeighborhoodAssociation Steering Committee.
Thank you.
From: Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee
To: Bozeman City Commission
Re: Application # 21381 Public Comment with Recommended UDC Update Edits
As a group, we have spent years navigating planning and development issues at the
neighborhood level—sometimes collaboratively, sometimes contentiously—and we still believe
we can align growth with community values if we choose to. With a 500-plus-page draft, most
residents won’t catch problems until the impacts hit their neighborhoods. We’re raising the ones
we already know firsthand are creating harm. These sections need stronger alignment with
reality, and we respectfully request that the proposed edits be considered now.
Our recommendations are based largely on the neighborhood survey conducted prior to, and
presented at, our UDC engagement meeting with the City on January 27, 2025. Bozeman
should not be afraid to push back on state mandates when they undermine local goals, nor
should UDC efforts be approached as something done to neighborhoods rather than with them.
Good planning succeeds when residents feel included, respected, and heard. Neighborhood
concerns are not obstacles; they are data, and they should guide you.
Finally, we recommend re-establishing the Community Development Board’s biannual UDC
review to allow for sensible and timely edits. Thank you for your consideration and for your
continued work on this update.
Respectfully,
Scott Boyd
Michelle Osman
Emily Talago
Noah ten Broek
Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee
Zone Map Conflicts
Recent large-scale demolition and redevelopment has prompted our historic and endearingly
vintage parts of town to think critically about how to protect their sense of place and long-term
investments. Some neighborhoods and businesses now feel they are on the verge of collapse
under the weight of intense urbanization pressure and uncertainty. In response, and out of
concern that the city may be drifting away from its own stated planning values, two
neighborhoods within the NCOD have petitioned for down-zoning. The timing is not random. It
reflects a community seeking stability, clarity, and alignment between policy, process, and the
vision residents have been told to trust.
Infill is not the same thing as redevelopment. For existing built environments, every mismatch
between what already exists and proposed zoning is a ticking time bomb- public outcry, anger,
destabilization- when thuggish development gains approval. Setting aside any requirements
from the NCOD, the neighborhoods flanking N 7th are a mix of housing types- SF, apartments,
duplexes. Nothing above three stories. RB allows 45 feet before AHO incentives and 8 units per
building. RA now 40 feet and 2 units + ADU. These are the next steps for infill- not RC, not RD.
The city’s assignment of B2-M to the state’s 60-foot “heavy commercial” category between Main
and Tamarack adds another mismatch. “Mixed” is largely nominal—there’s no requirement for
mixed use. A district like B1 or B3-C would better support neighborhood-serving commercial
activity, especially if heights above three stories step down to respect existing context. North of
Tamarack, larger commercial makes sense; it transitions with direct access to Oak street arterial
and the interstate, drawing from a regional customer base. This correction also better reflects
the longstanding goals of the N 7th Design and Connectivity Plan.
The B-3. Experience has taught us: the B-3 extension beyond Babcock and Mendenhall is less
halo and more hernia. Please read the draft’s purpose of the B-3 and ask yourself if we’re
meeting those goals, particularly beyond the halo, and assess where 90 feet might reasonably
cause some tension. B-3 should be complimentary, not cancerous.
The incessant and ideological pursuit of ultra high density for Midtown is strange- it has no
transit station, and is not in proximity to our two largest employers and heavily frequented areas-
Deaconess Hospital and MSU. Per MDT, safe performance of N 7th is rapidly deteriorating.
Parkland
On April 10, 2017, the Commission established criteria for evaluating CIL requests. At that time,
commissioners noted the need for small public spaces as downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods densify, and anticipated that parkland and open space requirements would be
strengthened during the upcoming UDC overhaul. Eight years and multiple UDC edits later, that
work remains undone.
The 2023 PRAT Plan (Goal 1) calls for maintaining the city’s current level of parkland per
resident (17 acres per 1,000 residents), creating consistent neighborhood park elements, and
ensuring parks reflect the identities of the neighborhoods they serve. Yet the Midtown and
Northside area- where infill has been the most intense, and where CIL is used most frequently-
has seen a net loss of neighborhood-type parkland, with more land shifting toward special-use
improvements.
Large multifamily projects now rely on private property to function as de-facto dog runs because
no public alternatives exist. This inequity shows up in everyday life, especially in the form of
increasing “dog pressure” on private lawns, gardens, or landscaping, if you catch our drift.
Please consider adding pet-focused open-space requirements for multifamily projects; revising
the 12-unit-per-acre cap used in CIL calculations; and ensuring that when pocket or
neighborhood parks cannot be provided on-site, CIL amounts are sufficient to allow the city to
acquire land and invest in meaningful neighborhood-serving park space.
Transportation Standards
Traffic conversations in Bozeman require nuance. Standards should be a starting point—not
something abandoned by administrative discretion without broad visibility or justification. The
contrast between the Peach Street (N 7th–5th) project and the College Street project shows
inconsistencies in process and engagement across different parts of town.
A failing level of service is not merely an inconvenience—it increases risky driver behavior.
Lowering the minimum acceptable LOS from C to D can work when the community understands
and supports a broader goal, but that change must occur through a transparent public process.
Moreover, changing the design year from 15 years to 5 years directly transfers costs from the
developer to the public. No valid reason has been given for this significant change.
Additionally, there are no justifications given for expanding the existing exceptions for meeting
LOS standards and allowing for administrative authority to waive compliance with the standards.
The existing exceptions should suffice without adding an open-ended, non-standards-based
exception. If such an exception is desired, it should be the commission that grants one and not
staff.
Please do not change LOS standards or make unilateral mitigation decisions outside a public
forum. These are significant, material changes that warrant public input and discussion,
particularly when all of the changes are to the benefit of development at the expense of the
public.
Parking Requirements
Zero-parking allowances in the corridor have repeatedly been abused, creating impacts that
Midtown residents disproportionately shoulder. The city should reinstate sensible parking
minimums and avoid incorporating HB 492 exemptions before they are legally required. Those
state mandates take effect in October 2026. Until then, we have an opportunity—and an
obligation—to design a fair, strategic curb-management and structured-parking approach, rather
than cementing avoidable problems.
Summary of Suggested Edits:
Zone Map Changes:
● Centennial and BonTon as requested
● Re-zone N. 7th URD/B2-M from Main to at least Peach (possibly Tamarack) as B1
○ Or a Midtown version of B3-C
● Re-zone residential East/West of N 7th to RA/RB, incremental to current built
● Restrict B-3 to halo around Main Street: Mendenhall, Babcock
Draft Text Changes:
● Table 38.420.020-1. Increase 12 unit/acre maximums to 60
● 38.530.020.L. Edit snow removal storage area- increase minimum percentage from 15 to
50% unless haul off contract is filed with the city
● 38.400.060.B.3. Edit Mitigation of Transportation Impacts to maintain min LOS C, and
strike a.(1-3.) exceptions
● 38.530.040.A.1.a Strike Midtown Urban Renewal District from list of exempt from parking
requirements