HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 Public Comment - Bozeman Tree Coalition - BTC Comments for UDC Update_CityCommission 12_2_25 mtngFrom:BozemanTreeCoalition
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Emma Bode; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Douglas Fischer
Cc:Erin George; Chuck Winn
Subject:[EXTERNAL]BTC Comments for UDC Update/CityCommission 12/2/25 mtng
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:09:06 PM
Attachments:11.30.25 BTC-UDC Comments.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.
Dear City Clerk-
Please submit the following comments from the Bozeman Tree Coalition to the UDC Updatefolder for the City Commission meeting on Dec. 2, 2025.
Thank you,
Marcia Kaveneyon behalf of the Bozeman Tree Coalition
From: Bozeman Tree Coalition
To: Bozeman City Commission
Re: UDC update
November 30, 2025
Dear Mayor Cunningham and members of the City Commission,
As the City Commission comes to its final hearings on the adoption of the Unified
Development Code Update-2025, we kindly request you take into consideration the
following recommendations by the Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC). Bozeman’s growth over
the past several years has resulted in the loss of many mature trees and groves of native
trees and other vegetation, some of which are simply not replaceable in our lifetime. There
is no better time than the present to implement policies and regulations to strengthen
environmental protections. This is the will of the community that responded to your UDC
engagement activities and is well supported by many Bozeman plans including, but not
limited to, the Bozeman Community Plan 2020, the Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands
Protection Plan, the Bozeman Climate Plan, and the 2016 Urban Forest Management Plan.
The BTC knows that strengthening the following codes will be the most eWective solution in
the near term to protect Bozeman's urban forest under the pressures of new development
while still making room for thoughtful growth. With public participation now removed by
the state from individual site plan review, our city codes are even more important and must
be able to stand alone. Please take our suggestions into serious consideration at the City
Commission meeting on Dec. 2, 2025, and vote in their favor. They are simple, fair, and
supported by community plans and interest.
Our suggestions below are divided into two parts. Part 1 concerns 38.410.010. B. Natural
Environment and Part 2 concerns 38.740.090. Plan Review Criteria.
BOZEMANTREECOALITION@GMAIL.COM
Part 1.
One of the most significant codes to improve is 38.410.010. General Standards. B. Natural
Environment, which states, “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, trees and other existing vegetation.”
Often discussed, this code has good goals but is rendered unenforceable by the qualifying
statement, “to the extent possible”. After reviewing staW and advisory board comments
regarding past suggestions, it appears the best solution is to strengthen the qualifier.
Therefore, BTC suggests inserting the word “maximum” into the phrase “to the extent
possible,” which results in a simple code that uses the same language as the newly
adopted Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Protection Plan and is aligned with several other
plans. We consider this to be an excellent compromise between doing nothing and
adopting a more drastic change.
The updated 38.410.010. B. would read as, “The design and development of all land uses
must be properly related to topography, and must, to the maximum extent possible,
preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, trees and other existing
vegetation.
(Emphasis by BTC)
The BTC also suggests adding some or all the following sentences to 38.410.010. B. to aid
both city planners and applicants in their design eWorts.
Priority should be given to retaining native trees and shrubs as per the Gallatin Valley
Sensitive Lands Protection Plan which states, "On-site native plants and mature trees
should be preserved to the maximum extent possible”.
Areas of native plants and mature trees can be utilized in parkland requirements as
per the Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation Plan which states, " Use the
Sensitive Lands Plan and maps to guide future parkland acquisition and developer
dedication in accordance with 76-3-621 Montana Code Annotated."
Total alteration of natural terrain and/or natural drainage, and total removal of topsoil,
trees and other vegetation is highly discouraged within greenfield development.
(Emphasis by BTC)
Part 2.
The other area of primary importance for the BTC and this UDC update is Division 38.740
Plan Review. There are three sections in Division 38.740 Plan Review that appear to have
been weakened, rather than strengthened, by changes initiated by staW in the September
2025 UDC draft. Although the BTC understands staW want ease in their review process, we
know it should not come at the cost of environmental degradation, which is antithetical to
community interests. We encourage the City Commission to request that original language
prior to the September 2025 UDC draft be reinstated and to also incorporate the BTC
suggested definitions and modifications as described in the following sections.
As you will see in our solutions presented below, BTC’s advocacy work benefits not only
existing trees/vegetation and wildlife that depend on them but entire neighborhoods, the
business community, and ultimately, all people of Bozeman and beyond.
Division 38.740 Plan Review.
Sec. 38.740.090. - Plan review criteria.
Problem A.
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;”
September UDC draft text:
6.a. “Compliance with standards for architectural design, building mass, landscaping,
historical character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration;”
Problem:
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”, staW also remove developer obligations to protect the “unique
natural beauty and environment of the City” as emphasized in Landscape 38.540. The
removal of this language is also in opposition to the stated environmental goals of the
Bozeman Community Plan 2020. Finally, having two related codes in opposition with each
other weakens both and confuses the reader.
Solution A.
1. Reinstate the original UDC language and,
2. Add definitions for “compatibility”, “sensitivity to”, and “neighborhood identity” to
section 38.800.
Used together with the definitions below, it is clear what “compatibility with, and sensitivity
to”, mean when addressing how a new development or building will fit in the existing
environment and neighborhood. This will support planning staW and inform developers
when planning their design.
Definitions:
“Compatibility with- works 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 diLerent 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)
Problem B.
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;
September 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;
(Underlining by BTC)
Problem:
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 diWerent 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 - new plantings or existing
mature vegetation, and the existing mature vegetation is what is important here, especially
in wooded or riparian areas, rather than newly planted vegetation.
Solution B.
1. Reinstate the original text “in harmony with” and reinstate “existing” and add “mature” to
read, “existing mature vegetation”.
2. Add the definition “in harmony with” to Section 38.800:
“In harmony with: When things are in harmony, they seem right or suitable together. There is
a sense of balance and compatibility.”
• Note- while this is subjective and may add a conversation between planners and
applicants, that is what good planning does. Planners should be able to incorporate
these discussions into the planning and review process by being bolstered from
existing and improved codes and definitions. The goal should not be to make
everything easier and quicker if doing so results in a less good product.
Problem C.
38.740.090. Plan Review Criteria.
7. Conformance with environmental and open space objectives set forth in articles 4,
article 5, article 6, including:
Original UDC text:
7.a. The enhancement of the natural environment through low impact stormwater features
or removal of inappropriate fill material;
New UDC text:
7.a. Stormwater controls;
Problem:
Changing the text to only read “Stormwater controls” removes the impetus for an 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 parklands, and protect existing wet areas that may have existing mature trees
and bird habitat. This option would support the City’s goals of sustainability and is a cost-
eWective water conservation measure.
Solution C.
1. Reinstate the original UDC text of 38.740.090. 7.a.
***************************************************
Thank you for considering the BTCs recommended text changes to the UDC draft of
September 2025. We trust that you will understand and agree with our concerns and, at
the very least, vote to reinstate the original text of the codes discussed above to uphold the
many environmental and land stewardship goals as stated in Bozeman’s many plans. There
is no time like the present to take a small step towards good land stewardship which can
exist alongside the building of new homes.
The Bozeman Tree Coalition advocates for Bozeman’s urban forest–its ecological function
and the ecosystem services it provides to the Bozeman Community as a whole. We believe
that housing and trees can co-exist.
As always, the BTC is available for in-person discussion with the City Commission.
Bozeman Tree Coalition co-founders and members,
Marcia Kaveney
Daniel Carty
Angie Kociolek
April Craighead
Christopher McQueary
Lara Schulz
Annie Sheets, consulting retired City Arborist and BTC member