HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-25 Public Comment - L. Semones - UDC ZET loopholeFrom:Linda Semones
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]ZET loophole
Date:Friday, November 28, 2025 8:12:32 AM
Attachments:Loophole Commenrt.docx
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 Mayor Cunningham, Deputy Mayor Morrison, and Commissioners Madgic, Fischer
and Bode,
On the day the current draft UDC was presented to the public in an online forum, I was in
attendance. At that meeting, Mayor Cunningham pointed out that the Zone Edge Transition
ordinance had been changed. There were now Zone Edge Transition requirements for the
subject (higher density and height) property for areas where the public right of way was less
than 60 feet. Mayor Cunningham stated that this change was at the request of the public,
concerned about the narrowness of the streets in the older sections of town. Those of us
who have been advocating for this provision were elated. The topic of Zone Edge
Transitions was one of the major topics identified to be of greatest public concern in the
many and varied public comment sessions held over the last two years. During my time on
the Historic Preservation Board, when the original draft UDC was presented to HPAB, we
were asked to either approve or deny approval of the transitions section of that plan. HPAB
denied approval, finding the transitions section inadequate. Shortly after, the whole UDC
process was paused due to the disapproval expressed by residents. Public comment was
initiated and a two year process of writing a draft UDC began anew. When the new UDC
draft was released, it seemed that the Commission and City Staff had found merit in
easing the transition between a residential zone and the B3, for example. If a street right of
way were less than 60’, depending on the abutting zones, the suggested code would
require, plantings, property line set backs, and architectural step backs. These Zone Edge
Transition requirements were designed to create livable, walkable, human friendly edges
with air and light circulation. The plantings were for noise mitigation and environmental
concerns such as water retention in the soil and animal and insect habitat.
At that time there was absolutely no mention of giving a developer two ways to comply with
this new section of code; either fulfilling the transition requirements (setback from the
property edge, plantings, architectural step back) or simply giving the developer the option
of ceding to the city enough of his fronting edge property (less than a foot in most cases) to
create the 60 foot right of way. Imagine the complete shock experienced by the public at
the Community Development Board on November 17 and the City Commission meeting on
the 18th when Mr. Saunders stated that the developers of the subject property had a “Get
Out of Transition Requirements Nearly Free Card”. All they had to do is cede less than a
foot of their fronting property to the city, thereby creating a 60’ public right of way.
Is this even legal? Can each developer along a street less than 60’ wide create their own
public right of way, of differing widths? This creates a huge problem of street standards not
having any predictability from property to property. Where did this loophole originate? Was
City Staff and the Commission aware of this loophole from the first day of the draft UDC
presentation, or was this an unintended consequence?
In the best-case scenario, this was an unintended consequence and can be corrected by
the City Commission moving to close the loophole by eliminating the possibility of ceding
fronting property to the city. This is precisely what should happen.
In the worst-case scenario, this provision was supported by City Staff and unknown
stakeholders from the time the new section dealing with streets less than 60’ wide was
introduced to the public. The public was just not informed of this possibility until mid-
November. If this is the case, the public has the right to feel blind-sided and betrayed. The
inadequacy of the spatial division between zoning districts is not addressed. The same
unacceptable situation that occurred at N. Tracy and W. Villard would be possible. As you
recall, one of the reasons that the City Commission gave for giving approval for the Henry
was that there were no city ordinances requiring any Zone Edge Transitions at the time. The
developer checked off all the boxes. We were told that in the future, such new ordinances
were a possibility, but that the Henry could proceed as planned due to lack of any limiting
ordinances. We were told at that time to advocate for changes to the UDC, specifically for
stronger Zone Edge Transition requirements to be placed into the UDC. And the public
most forcefully and positively did exactly that. Zone Edge Transitions became one of the
major topics discussed during the public comment period, including the need to have
different requirements when a street was not built out to current standards.
We have a chance as a city determined to create a balanced and fair UDC to correct this
failing. Giving the developer the option of ceding less than a foot of the fronting property to
the city to avoid Zone Edge Transition requirements is a facetious piece of trickery that
does not create balance and fairness. It is a sly way to avoid any responsibility to protect
historical resources, or to play well with the residents of affected neighborhoods. I would
like to point out that the transition requirements for Zone Edge Transitions where a street is
less than 60’ wide do not in any way hinder the gradual addition of density and height on
the residential side. They have no effect on the zoning and therefore the subject property
can develop to its full urban potential. They do not hinder redevelopment. They are in
compliance with the Community Growth Plan.
What is the real concern here? I fear it is simply that the bottom line of the developers of
the subject property would be affected. The profit margin of developers should not be a
major concern of the city. Balanced planning including both the needs of developers and
the needs of the citizens residing next to developments is state of the art planning practice
and should be the major concern of our city. Close the loophole.
Sincerely,
Linda Semones. 404 S Church