HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-25 Public Comment - J. Delume - Re_ Issues re Transitions in Dec UDC DraftFrom:Jason Delmue
To:Jennifer Madgic; Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Emma Bode; Douglas Fischer; Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Henry Happel; Mark Egge; Chris Egnatz; Ben Lloyd; Chris Saunders; Tom Rogers; Erin George; Trenton Ruffalo
Subject:[EXTERNAL][Small Clarification Added] Re: Issues re: Transitions in Dec UDC Draft
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 10:06:54 AM
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.
Greetings again, Commissioners,
Quick clarification, as noted below in redline as well as inserted into the body of the
original e-mail.
"The yellow-with-red-hash area, depicted on the protected side of the line, highlights
the additional allowance the equal-across-the-line concept affords. Conversely, the
new building cannot exceed the yellow-with-red-hash area unless it complies withwhatever Transition applies."
--Jason
406.600.2896
On Monday, December 15, 2025 at 02:27:33 PM MST, Jason Delmue <delmue@yahoo.com> wrote:
Greetings CDB Members, Commissioners, and Staff,
Two things relating to Transitions in the current (Dec. 2025) draft UDC:
1. It does not fully capture the CDB recommendation to the effect that the
burdened lot should be able to develop the same degree as the protected lot
before being subject to Transitions. Only encompassed is the structure. Not
encompassed is the location (same setback). I think this should be edited
accordingly.
2. Between the Nov. and Dec. drafts, landscaping transition (subtype b) was
added in three B-3 contexts: adjacent to R-C, R-D, and REMU Residential. I
think that these should be changed back.
I believe only the Commission can take action at this point; although, I believe that we
can informally discuss.
The origin of the equal-across-the-property-line concept was the public comment
submitted by Intrinsik Architecture on Oct. 20, 2025.
https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?
id=308352&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN
This straightforward aspect of Intrinsik's suggested edits was voted 6-0 in favor by
CDB on Nov. 3, 2025, at 3:19:10 of the meeting video.
The idea is conveyed in the diagrams on the last pages of the public comment,
which show, for each less-intense zone that might be adjacent to B-3, a purple box
representing what is allowed on the other side of the line. This box represents not
only a size of building, but also a location (same on-the-ground setback as the other
side of the line). The yellow-with-red-hash area, depicted on the protected side ofthe line, highlights the additional allowance the equal-across-the-line concept affords.
Conversely, the new building cannot exceed the yellow-with-red-hash area unless it
complies with whatever Transition applies.
The justification for these suggestions was twofold:
1. Fairness: The burdened lot should be able to develop the same as the
protected lot before being subject to a transition, which is especially relevant for
smaller (especially narrower) parcels, since Transitions seemed to be based
only on large projects on large parcels.
2. Public Policy: Not to unduly restrict the important B-3 area from being able to
realize its important role in our regionally significant city.
The CDB discussion of this item occurred at these dates and times in the archived
video:
Nov. 3: 3:11:14 (through 3:19:27). Vote begins at 3:19:10.
Nov. 17: 4:15:17 (through 4:33:11)
(explicit clarification by me of the equal-across-the-line concept at 4:17:55)
City Video page:
https://www.bozeman.net/departments/city-commission/meeting-videos
--Jason
406.600.2896