HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-25 Public Comment - J. Delmue - CDB Recommended Edits that Require Affirmative Action by the CommissionFrom:Emma Bode
To:delmue; Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer
Cc:Chris Saunders; Tom Rogers; Erin George; Trenton Ruffalo; Mike Maas; Bozeman Public Comment; Henry
Happel; Chris Egnatz; Mark Egge; Ben Lloyd
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]CDB Recommended Edits that Require Affirmative Action by the Commission
Date:Tuesday, December 2, 2025 11:23:17 AM
Good Morning Jason,
Thanks for sending this over. We received the following document from Planning staff last week that
I think outlines all the items you included in your attached pdf. We did ask for the CDB amendments
to be compiled as a separate document so that we can affirmatively adopt the amendments as a
group or individually. Hope this helps assuage any concerns you have.
Best,
Emma
From: Jason Delmue <delmue@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:55 AM
To: Terry Cunningham <TCunningham@BOZEMAN.NET>; Joey Morrison
<jmorrison@BOZEMAN.NET>; Jennifer Madgic <jmadgic@BOZEMAN.NET>; Douglas Fischer
<dfischer@BOZEMAN.NET>; Emma Bode <ebode@BOZEMAN.NET>
Cc: Chris Saunders <csaunders@BOZEMAN.NET>; Tom Rogers <TRogers@BOZEMAN.NET>; Erin
George <egeorge@BOZEMAN.NET>; Trenton Ruffalo <truffalo@BOZEMAN.NET>; Mike Maas
<MMaas@BOZEMAN.NET>; Bozeman Public Comment <comments@BOZEMAN.NET>; Henry Happel
<henryhhappel@gmail.com>; Chris Egnatz <scegnatz@gmail.com>; Mark Egge
<markegge@gmail.com>; Ben Lloyd <blloyd@henneberyeddy.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]CDB Recommended Edits that Require Affirmative Action by the Commission
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.
Good morning, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners!
Attached is a memo from me and CDB Commission Liaison Madgic that is hopefully
helpful and perhaps necessary to make clear which edits to the UDC the CDB voted
to recommend to you that are NOT incorporated into the current (Nov. 2025) draft andwhich therefore require affirmative action (motion and vote) by one of you if
they are to become part of the updated UDC. (One of the votes was a 3-3 tie.)
Sorry that this is so late. I didn't realize until Commissioner Madgic mentioned lastnight after our CDB meeting that nothing concise like this had been prepared and
provided to you.
As you are probably aware, she and I endeavored throughout the CDB part of theUDC Update to assemble, from CDB Members and public comment, suggested edits
to the UDC so that CDB could analyze and provide a recommendation to you.
--Jason Delmue
Member, Community Development Board 406.600.2896
Page 1 of 5
To: City Commission
From: Jason Delmue, CDB Member
Jennifer Madgic, Commission Liaison
Date: December 2, 2025
Re: UDC Edits Recommended by CDB that Need Commission’s Affirmative
Action
This memo sets forth edits to the UDC recommended by CDB that are NOT incorporated in
the most-current draft (Nov. 2025) and which therefore require affirmative Commission
action (motion and vote) in order to become part of the updated UDC.
NOTE that page references are to the PDF page of the current (Nov 2025) draft because
this draft does not have links/jumps from the table of contents nor does it allow the “go”
function to use the document page formatting (ex. page 2-39).
It is expected that the motion for the more technical of these edits can reference the
supporting linked material.
The following edits to the UDC text or map were voted on and approved (or in one case
tied):
1.Reduce the required minimum height of non-residential ground fioors in B-1, B-
2M, B-3, REMU, and NEHMU to 12 feet (from 15 feet)
CDB vote 6-0 in favor on Nov. 3.
Taller ground fioors, where desired, would still be allowed. This edit would make
permissible less-tall ground fioors.
This change needs to be made in each building standards page for the non-
residential ground story required minimum height in the respective districts:
B-1 (p. 31);
B-2M (p. 35);
B-3 (p. 37);
REMU for mixed-use buildings (p. 43);
NEHMU for mixed-use buildings (p. 47).
2.Reduce required minimum residential densities as set forth below:
CDB voted in favor on Nov. 3 (6-0 as to R-A and 5-1 as to the rest).
There is a signiflcant flnancial incentive not to waste scarce expensive land here,
and so it would be expected that often these minimums would be exceeded. The
Page 2 of 5
purpose of these edits is to make permissible a greater range of options that the
market might demand and flnd elsewhere (Belgrade, the County, and beyond) if not
available in Bozeman.
Current code Current (Nov 2025) Draft CDB Recommended
R-A 5 10 (p. 18; 2-8) 6 (6-0 vote Nov. 3)
R-B 5 12 (p. 20; 2-10) 8 (5-1 vote Nov 3)
R-C 8 18 (p. 22; 2-12) 10 “
R-D 8 24 (p. 24; 2-14) 14 “
REMU N/A 24 (p. 40; 2-30) 14 “
3. To add language regarding wall plate height measurement so as not to prohibit
shed roofs where otherwise appropriate
CDB voted 6-0 in favor on Nov. 3.
Two-part crux, for shed roofs:
1. The wall plate height measurement applies at the lowest two corners;
2. The other two corners (the high side) if within 15’ of a property line cannot
exceed by more than 6’ the max wall plate height of the district.
The speciflc language needed is set forth in architect Erik Bonnett’s public comment
of Nov. 3, 2025:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308663&dbid=0&repo=B
OZEMAN
4. With respect to Transitions, allow the burdened lot to develop to the same
degree (location as well as structure) as the protected lot before being subject
to a Transition.
CDB vote 6-0 in favor on Nov. 3.
Transitions begin on PDF p. 105 (p. 2-95). Section 38.260.070.
The current (Nov 2025) draft contains no language to effectuate this
principle.
The public comment by architect Rob Pettzborn suggesting this edit has
helpful illustrative diagrams (purple flgures) on the last several pages:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308352&dbid=0&r
epo=BOZEMAN&cr=1
For structures on the burdened side that would exceed what is allowed on
the protected side, Staff and Code Studio would have to develop the precise
Page 3 of 5
language describing how the Transition would apply (e.g., perhaps a
stepback would occur lower than otherwise or would be a greater distance).
5. To change the requirements for non-residential building
modulation/articulation as suggested by CDB Member Chris Egnatz.
CDB voted 6-0 in favor on Nov. 17.
The suggested edits and material in support from CDB Member Egnatz were part of
the Nov. 17 CDB meeting packet:
https://legistarweb-
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3734199/38.520.040_-
_Egnatz_motion_illustration.pdf
The current (Nov 2025) draft does not incorporate these edits.
6. Allow sketch plan review (instead of having to submit a site plan) for adding up to
two new dwellings on an inflll site. (This increases the allowance from one new
dwelling to two new dwellings.)
CDB voted 6-0 in favor on Nov. 17.
Change to: Adding up to two one dwellings on an inflll site.
PDF page 445 (p. 7-67). Section 38.740.060.A.3.b
7. To increase the number of units allowed in a building in R-B to 12 units (from 8
units).
CDB voted 3-3 on this motion on Nov 17.
The public comment suggesting this edit stated the relative affordability of a 3-story
residential structure with a single staircase and four units per story. The concern
from CDB Members was mostly related to parking. The building size is regulated
independently of the number of units allowed within it.
8. To allow the number of units in a building in R-C to exceed 24 in exchange for
affordability.
CDB voted 6-0 in favor on Nov. 17.
There is no exact language because Staff thought Economic Development would
have input as to what the required affordability metrics and the tradeoff should be.
PDF p. 23 (p. 2-13) lists the cap of 24 units in the building standards page for R-C.
Page 4 of 5
9. To delete the requirement that residential buildings have building entrances
facing the street.
CDB voted 6-0 in favor on Nov. 17.
This suggested edit and supporting photos were submitted by CDB Member Mark
Egge:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308668&dbid=0&repo=B
OZEMAN&cr=1
10. To downzone (most of) the Centennial Park area to R-B
CDB voted 4-2 on Nov. 17.
Initially it was clarifled that the actual Centennial Park and the Senior Center would
become PLI, and the apartment complex on the SE corner of Tamarack and Grand
would become R-C.
At issue was the rest of the Centennial Park area requested by the residents.
CDB voted 4-2 that the zoning be R-B (instead of the requested R-A)
and then voted 4-2 to recommend approving the downzone request (but modifled to
R-B).
The draft zone map currently shows this area as R-A, and so the Commission
would need to make a motion and vote to change the map if that were desired.
11. NOT to Downzone the R-4 part of the Bon-Ton area.
CDB voted 4-2 on Nov. 17.
CDB’s motion did not exactly address (only) the area that was the subject of the Bon
Ton residents’ request; instead, CDB voted that all of the current R-4 in that area
(which extends slightly farther east than what was requested by the Bon Ton
residents) be allowed to convert per the formula to R-C from the current R-4.
The Bon Ton request was (only) from the E side of 4th to the E side of Grand, plus
one property facing Willson. The current R-4 area extends farther east, to the alley
between Willson and Tracy.
The draft zone map currently shows this entire R-4 area (i.e., more than the Bon
Ton request) as becoming R-A, and so the Commission would need to make a
motion and vote to change the map if that were desired.
12. Fraternities and sororities
CDB voted 5-1 to recommend two of the edits requested via public comment:
Page 5 of 5
1. That the required meeting space be a single contiguous space
-and-
2. That the size of the space be for the greater of 90% of the enrolled members or 70
people (increased from 40 people)
-CDB voted 4-2 not to recommend increasing required parking from 5 to 8
spaces, the idea being that large gatherings seems to be the main issue, which 3
additional on-site parking spaces does not address.
-No CDB member made a motion for the requested edit to distinguish based on
the residential zone (requested was to allow fraternities and sororities only in R-C
and above). The idea was to regulate the use so as to make it reasonable. Also,
Greek Way is R-B.
The current (Nov 2025) draft UDC text does not refiect any changes
recommended by CDB or the other two suggested edits requested by the
neighbors, and so the Commission would need to make a motion and vote to
change the draft text if that were desired.
The original public comment suggesting these edits was from Kathy Powell:
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=308666&dbid=0&repo=B
OZEMAN