HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 Public Comment - D. Kaveney - UDC update comments.From:Dan Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC update comments.
Date:Sunday, November 30, 2025 8:25:40 PM
Attachments:11.30.25 BTC-UDC Comments.pdf
UDC 12-2 last chance & BBC HOLIDAY PARTY!.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 Commissioners,
You've got a big, consequential day ahead of you on Tuesday. I wanted to offer up a couplethoughts for your consideration.
The UDC update will have an enormous effect on Bozeman going forward, and, as you know
better than I, it's critically important to get this right. There are lots of perspectives that you'llprobably want to consider. I am writing to ask you to pay special attention to perspectives
offered by two organizations -- The Bozeman Tree Coalition, and the Better BozemanCoalition. These organizations are populated by dedicated volunteers who have become
experts in the issues at hand, and whose minds and opinions have not been polluted byeconomic self-interest. They are all about preserving and stewarding what is best about
Bozeman through these very difficult times. Please adopt all their recommendations. I doubtit's necessary, but I have attached their recommendations for your easy reference.
Thanks for your consideration.
Dan Kaveney
Bozeman, MT
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
View this email in your browser
***BBC Holiday Party!***
Dear Marcia,
We hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving! Save the date for a BBC HOLIDAY
PARTY (not a meeting) on Friday, December 19th! Thanks for all the wonderful
participation and advocacy over the last 2 years. Together we’ve made some
positive impacts and sometimes we just need to celebrate!
Location to be determined, but mark your calendar!
December 2nd—final UDC!
Let’s make sure we really do have lots to celebrate by submitting one last blast of
comment to support worthy changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC) some
of which have shown up in the September 19th draft, and some that have not.
Subscribe Past Issues RSSTranslate
The Commission has decided to hold the meeting on Tuesday December 2nd at a
special time because there are other large items on the agenda including the tenants
right to council.
Special meeting time
1pm Tuesday 12/2
City Hall
The UDC update is not the first item, so you may not need to show up at 1pm if you
don’t want to. You could follow along via the video link in the agenda and show up
when the UDC is beginning to be discussed. There will likely be a presentation by
staff, then the Commission will ask clarifying questions, and then there should be
public comment before the Commissioners make their final deliberations.
Following is a list of comments you can make to the City Commission NOW! There’s
a button at the end to submit all 8 of these suggestions, but feel free to draft
comments in your own words as well. That’s often more effective.
comments@bozeman.net
1. Close the Zone Edge Transitions Loophole!
Only on November 17th were we, the public, made aware of an enormous loophole
in the new UDC that would allow developers to get out of enacting the Zone Edge
Transition regulations described on page 105 of the draft. These transition
regulations are designed to mitigate the negative impacts of high density
development on adjacent lower-density neighborhoods. Unfortunately, if a developer
wants to give the city a few feet or a few inches, they don’t have to incorporate
setbacks, landscaping, or step the building back above the third story. WE WANT
DEVELOPERS TO BUILD TRANSITIONS! Read this public comment by a BBC
member who has advocated for years for better transitions and tell the
commissioners to close this loophole!
2. Cap height in the B-3 at 60 feet!
Even some developers are suggesting that the City NOT raise the allowed height in
B-3 to 90 feet! A new state law requires that cities like Bozeman allow a 60 foot
building in commercial areas, but why has Bozeman allowed 90 feet in the UDC
draft? Instead, we should cap allowed height at 60 feet, and then allow the
additional height only in exchange for affordable housing! This incentive is already
included in our Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) updated last January. Tell the
commission not to give things away, but rather leverage incentives for community
benefit!
3. Support neighborhood rezoning proposals and the EBA!
Subscribe Past Issues RSSTranslate
The Bon Ton and Centennial Park neighborhoods have both submitted detailed
zoning requests to be R-A in the UDC update. The new R-A zone would allow for a
duplex (and an ADU) on every lot, which would allow for a gradual and predictable
increase in density in these neighborhoods. The Existing Building Alternative (EBA)
would allow an existing structure over 35 years old to internally divide into 4 units.
This is one of the recommendations from Strong Towns in their Housing Ready
Toolkit.In the draft UDC the neighborhoods are both shown on the map as R-A. But
the Community Development Board and special interest groups are lobbying for
higher density zoning. Tell the Commission to honor the neighborhoods’ proposals
and include the EBA!
4. Bozeman Tree Coalition’s suggested language!
The Bozeman Tree Coalition (BTC) has advocated for years for better language in
code to protect our urban forest from unnecessary destruction in the development
process. They have met with staff and commissioners and have submitted their
suggestions in writing. Their most recent suggestions were submitted today. One
example is their request to add the word “maximum” to the section of code in
38.410.010.B. Natural Environment, so that it would read, “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.” This is the language in our Sensitive
Lands Plan. Plans are written to inform code. Tell the Commissioners to adopt this
language and the other recommendations from BTC!
5. Require adequate Fraternity & Sorority gathering space!
The University Neighborhood Association (UNA) has worked tirelessly for years to
make sure that new and relocating Greek Houses are set up for success. The idea is
to prevent unnecessary neighborhood conflicts, by requiring that Fraternity and
Sorority (F&S) facilities be equipped for the unique conditions of Greek life. For
example, the city should require new and relocating F&S to have a single meeting
space that accommodates a minimum of 70 members. The average F&S at the
university has membership in the 80’s, while many have over 100 members. Write to
the Commissioners asking them to adopt the suggestions from the UNA, especially
the suggestion that new and relocating F&S have a single meeting space adequate
for 70 members.
6. Incorporate GWC suggestions into code!
Throughout the UDC engagement process the Gallatin Watershed Council (GWC)
has made recommendations to help steward our water resources, while improving
usability of the code, and predictability for everyone. With subdivision review
becoming entirely administrative we really do need an ecologist on staff to make sure
that our natural resources are protected as we grow. But the code needs to do that
too! Read their latest UDC recommendations submitted last week. At a minimum,
we should incorporate their suggestion that an Aquatic Resource Delineation report
Subscribe Past Issues RSSTranslate
be required at the pre-application stage of development outlined in 38.710.030. Tell
the Commissioners to include GWC’s recommendations in the UDC update!
7. Midtown Neighborhood Association recommendations!
This neighborhood has shouldered the brunt of so much of the new density coming
online in Bozeman. Some developments the neighbors welcome, some they
oppose, but it has been an overwhelming game of whack-a-mole for years to try and
keep up with it all. They’ve met with Commissioners and staff, submitted their
suggestions in writing, attended open houses and hosted walks like everyone else.
And yet, their suggestions continue to be ignored. I particularly value their insights
on zoning map conflicts and parkland dedication in code. Midtown has potential as
a historic district, and so the suggestion that N. 7th from Main to Peach be rezoned
B-1 could protect this area while the Landmark Program is finished. And we’re
consistently seeing greater density in areas with LITTLE OR NO outdoor park and
green space. We are on our way to repeating the mistakes of other cities where they
turn their core neighborhoods into high-density hell-scapes where people have no
relief from the concrete and black metal jungle! Tell the Commissioners to consider
the recommendations submitted by the Midtown Neighborhood Association in
November!
8. No B-3 expansion to E. Curtiss!
In an effort to remove areas of the zoning map where zones change mid-block, the
Church and 3 small homes on the north side of E. Curtiss between South Tracy and
South Black are being upzoned from R-2 to B-3! This is an enormous increase in
development potential that could have significant negative impacts to the S Tracy
historic district! This document details the arguments against this expansion of the
B-3 zoning district. It also highlights a poignant suggestion made by a neighbor that
actually the city-owned parking lot should be rezoned as R-A instead! It makes so
much more sense, and this is exactly the kind of great result we get when we involve
the people who live on the ground. Email the Commission asking them to leave the
B-3 boundary at it’s current location, rather than expanding it as the proposed draft
shows!
Click below to send a single email.
Or craft one in your own words if you have time.
THANK YOU!
email the Commissioners
Subscribe Past Issues RSSTranslate
We Are the Better Bozeman Coalition
Our mission is to preserve the unique character of Bozeman’s neighborhoods
while working with the city on housing affordability, availability and natural
resource sustainability.
Join Us
If you believe in the work we do, forward this email to friends
and have them subscribe on the website!
Thank you for participating!
-Alison Sweeney, Chair of the BBC
Copyright (C) 2025 Better Bozeman Coalition. All rights reserved.
Here you can unsubscribe
Subscribe Past Issues RSSTranslate