HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-11-26 Public Comment - E. Talago - Public Comment re_ N7 Design and Connectivity Plan_Midtown Urban Renewal DistrictFrom:Emily Talago
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Public Comment re: N7 Design and Connectivity Plan/Midtown Urban Renewal District
Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 3:40:34 PM
Attachments:Public Comment May 10.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.
Please see attached public comment.Thank you!
May 10, 2026
Hello City Commission and Manager Winn,
For nearly two decades, the North 7th Design & Connectivity Plan (N7 D&C) served as the public vision
for Midtown Bozeman. Developed alongside creation of the Midtown Urban Renewal District (MURD) in 2006,
the plan established a civic framework for the corridor: safer pedestrian and bicycle connections, public spaces,
streetscape improvements, gateway design, multimodal circulation, coordinated reinvestment, and stronger
neighborhood connectivity. It also helped provide the public-interest justification for the use of urban renewal
and tax increment financing in Midtown.
I attended the April 16, 2026 Tax Increment Financing Advisory Board Meeting via Zoom, and was
surprised when city staff stated that the N7 D&C had been sunset, “formally”, by the City Commission. This was
in direct response to public comment suggesting the board orient themselves and their decisions to that plan. I
then made a public comment asking for clarification about that process.1 Commission liaison Sweeny was
responsive to that request and made an email inquiry through the city Manager, the response of which was
forwarded to me. This response stated that the sunset occurred during the Community Plan Technical
Compliance Update adopted on October 25, 2026.2
I will remind the Commission that Community Engagement for the October update was limited due to
purported time constraints and the narrow scope of changes required to bring the growth policy into
compliance with MLUPA. Notably, changes to article Appendix B (where the N7 D&C was located) were
characterized largely as reorganization and supplementation. The public notice stated:
“...the document is mostly the same as the previously approved growth policy but has been
updated to address new requirements in state law and to bring to current information about
the community.”
Nowhere does the city suggest that this specific plan was proposed to be sunset.3 4
For context, I was serving on the MURD board in June 2021 when staff presented us with an action
item to sunset the N7 D&C. At the time, the Planning Board was engaged in the 2020 Community Plan
implementation, and would be considering various issue plans. During discussion, the MURD board emphasized
the value of retaining the plan’s historical and policy context, with commissioner liaison Madgic noting that
neighborhood plans carry statutory significance and help preserve the district’s standing within the broader
growth policy. MURD board discussion also covered the potential for updating the plan rather than sunsetting
it, including questions about staffing, funding, and ongoing codification of design standards work. Staff was to
circle back with further analysis, and no board action was taken.5
5 Midtown Urban Renewal District Board June 6, 2021 Meeting Minutes
Hyperlink to pdf; Attachment D
4 Public Notice for the Community Plan Technical Compliance Update
Hyperlink to pdf; Attachment C
3 October 8, 2025 Community Plan Technical Compliance Update 2025 Summary of Changes
Hyperlink to pdf; Attachment B
2 April 21, 2-26 email correspondence between Sweeny and Winn
Attachment A
1 MC Public Comment at (1:39:55); staff response at (1:42:19); ET Public Comment at (1:42:52)
Hyperlink to meeting recording
During Summer 2021 Planning Board discussions, members and City staff, with analysis spearheaded
by Cathy Costakis, publicly discussed the N7 D&C similarly as an active and still-relevant implementing
framework that remained partially unfinished, aligned with the Growth Policy, and worthy of retention or
update.6
Another important context to consider is the board consolidation process that was underway and
finalized by the end of 2021. Today, there is shared sentiment that this action rendered many boards effectively
impotent, while the Midtown and Northeast Urban renewal boards were castrated entirely. Regardless, since
the various discussions in 2021, no public board or body has taken a vote on the question of sunsetting the N7
D&C. Rather, the recommendation contemplated was to intentionally keep the plan so that MURD efforts
would remain anchored to the implementing vision.
Beyond the procedurally-problematic aspect of this issue, staff’s explanation asserts that the
conceptual components have been captured within the Action Plan and B2-M zoning designation. However, the
district was not created solely to facilitate redevelopment; it was created to pursue a broader public vision for
the corridor in service of surrounding neighborhoods. By deleting the N7 D&C, it not only undermines the
substantial efforts of those who created and stewarded the URD, it also risks:
● Loss of the Vision of Multimodal Connectivity
○ Risk that future infrastructure decisions become easier to reinterpret around
automobile throughput or redevelopment economics alone
○ Loss of granular details, eg. pedestrian refuge islands; roundabouts designed for
pedestrian safety; festival streets; cross-property pedestrian access; shared-use trails;
connectivity between neighborhoods and commercial uses
○ Example of last summer’s N7 intersection “improvements” by MDT
● Loss of the Corridor Identity and the Human-Scale Design Intent
○ The Action Plan emphasizes development feasibility, housing production incentives,
and infrastructure economics. Meanwhile the N7 D&C grounds effort in human-scale
urbanism, neighborhood-serving mixed use, distinct corridor identity, placemaking,
public art and open space, and public realm activation.
○ Risking a Mission Transition from “What kind of place are we trying to create?” to
unsympathetically “How can we incentivize redevelopment?”
● Loss of Corridor-Specific Urban Design Standards
○ The N7 D&C plan provides granular detail for things like building orientation, setbacks;
pedestrian frontage; parking placement; landscaping; streetscape hierarchy, public
realm design, and corridor identity.
■ Example specific language: “commercial services on the main level fronting the
corridor, with residential uses above and behind”
○ While the Action Plan does reference this concept, it does not reproduce the
comprehensive design framework.
Without that framework, Midtown risks becoming untethered from the broader public vision that originally
justified the use of tax increment financing and urban renewal authority.
6 Staff Comment and discussion at (0:10:02); board discussion at (0:22:50)
Hyperlink to meeting recording
This concern is especially relevant at the moment when many neighborhood stakeholders already feel
disconnected from current Midtown decision-making. Recommendations and input raised during recent UDC
discussions7 8 were largely not addressed nor adopted, and questions continue to emerge about whether
current TIF priorities remain aligned with the original public vision for Midtown revitalization.
These concerns deserve collaborative discussion, because it’s okay if plans evolve, but they must do so with
empowerment, intention, and public trust. Having weathered a major recession, the Midtown URD was slow to
start. Continued success will require more than isolated redevelopment projects or reactive infrastructure
decisions. It requires steadfast, continuous, and focused workplan development grounded in a shared public
vision. Downtown Bozeman did not evolve through sporadic investment alone, but through sustained
organizational structure, dedicated management, and long-term stewardship. Midtown deserves the same
level of intentionality.
The City should convene district stakeholders, including residents, small businesses, former board members,
MDT district 2 admin and Commissioner, transportation advocates, and property owners to collaboratively
evaluate Midtown’s future and rebuild alignment around implementation priorities. I have spoken with
multiple business owners in the district who indicated they have not been actively solicited for input regarding
the proposed Midtown workplan and budget. That absence of engagement is itself concerning.
The Commission should consider establishing a dedicated Midtown Task Force charged with developing
recommendations for long-term governance and implementation, including drafting an RFP to explore creation
of a Midtown-focused improvement structure similar to the Downtown model, with professional management
dedicated solely to Midtown revitalization and coordination.
Once a durable organizational framework is in place, the community will be far better positioned to make
thoughtful, strategic, and publicly accountable investment decisions that advance the original vision for
Midtown as a connected, neighborhood-serving, and human-scaled district with a distinct identity. For the
purpose of spurring discussion, potential amendments to the workplan and budget will be submitted
separately. I hope the Commission will treat this matter as an opportunity to re-engage the public and
re-establish a clear, accountable, and community-centered vision for Midtown’s future.
Respectfully,
Emily Talago
Former Midtown Urban Renewal District Board Member
Co-Founder, Steering Committee Member, and former INC representative, Midtown Neighborhood Association
Former Chair, Bozeman InterNeighborhood Council
bcc:
Mayor Morrison, Deputy Mayor Fischer, Commissioner Madgic, Commissioner Bode, Commissioner Sweeney
8 Midtown Neighborhood Association UDC Meeting and Survey
Attachment F
7 Public Comment on UDC update- Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee
Hyperlink to pdf, Attachment E
Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>
not urgent - N. 7th Design and Connectivity Plan
Alison Sweeney <Alison.Sweeney@bozemanmt.gov>Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 7:55 AM
To: Chuck Winn <Chuck.Winn@bozemanmt.gov>
Oh interesting. Ok, thank you very much Chuck, and David and Chris!
I’m going to try to convince some commissioners to join me in asking that we re-engage with the
neighborhood on an update to the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan. Maybe then we could incorporate some
things from the Design and Connectivity plan that neighboring residents would like to see remain in
focus, and address some zoning issues.
Thanks so much,
Alison
From: Chuck Winn <Chuck.Winn@bozemanmt.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026 7:45 AM
To: Alison Sweeney <Alison.Sweeney@bozemanmt.gov>
Subject: Re: not urgent - N. 7th Design and Connectivity Plan
Hi Alison,
Please see the response from David and Chris regarding N. 7th and let me know if you have
any questions.
Thanks,
Chuck
As you are aware, we recently updated our land use plan to be compliant with the Montana
Land Use Planning Act. One portion of MLUPA is Section 76-25-201 which says in part:
(4) The governing body shall incorporate any existing neighborhood, area, or plans adopted
pursuant to Title 76, chapter 1, that meet the requirements of this chapter into the land use
plan and future land use map.
The 2005 N 7th Design and Connectivity Plan was adopted under different law, process, and
circumstances. The Commission considered it at their Oct 23, 2006 meeting, beginning on page
4 of the minutes. It was not adopted as an area plan nor was it adopted by resolution or
ordinance. It also did not contemplate the range of issues required for an area plan by MLUPA.
Therefore, it did not meet the requirements cited above to be continued.
The Midtown Urban Renewal Plan was updated in 2015, pursuant to Ordinance 1925. The 2017
Midtown Action Plan was adopted by Resolution 4781, and on page 6 states that the work
described in the Design and Connectivity Plan has largely been implemented in large sections
of the corridor. The UDC was updated in 2018 to incorporate the new B2-M district which
absorbed many of the conceptual standards from the 2005 N 7th plan.
The new land use plan (Bozeman Community Plan) was adopted on Oct 28, 2025 by
Commission Resolution 2025-071. Section 4 of Resolution 2025-071 specifically calls out the
Area Plans that are carried forward as required in the citation above. The Midtown Action Plan
is specifically mentioned to carry forward. The N. 7th Design and Connectivity Plan was not.
From: Alison Sweeney <Alison.Sweeney@bozemanmt.gov>
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2026 11:03 AM
To: Chuck Winn <Chuck.Winn@bozemanmt.gov>
Subject: not urgent - N. 7th Design and Connectivity Plan
Hey Chuck,
There was some public comment at the last TIF meeting that indicates there is confusion about
when/if/how the North 7th Design and Connectivity plan was sunset. Was this a public process with a
commission vote or anything? If so, could I please get the video link or meeting minutes of when/if/how
this happened? If it wasn’t a public process, could I please get info on how it happened so that I can
understand why the Midtown neighborhood wasn’t made aware?
I enjoy being the Liaison to this board and just need to get myself up to speed on stuff.
Thank you.
Alison
City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana’s Constitution (Art. II,
Sect. 9) and may be considered a “public record” pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated.
As such, this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and
will be retained pursuant to the City’s record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential
information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law.
Bozeman Community Plan
Technical Compliance Update
2025 Summary of Changes
The City is updating the Bozeman Community Plan (adopted in November 2020) to comply
with changed state law. Due to a constrained timeframe for compliance, the update is focused
on addressing those elements responsive to new state law. The plan contains five chapters
and four appendices.
Chapter 1 – Basics: A general overview of the plan and community, and the question of
engaging with and responding to growth. Updated data for population and descriptive data is
included. Updates to titles of related documents have been provided.
Chapter 2 – Themes: Identifies goals and policies. This the most aspirational section of the
document. Titles of related documents associated with each theme have been updated. Minor
adjustments to introductory text have been made due to passage of time and some updated
maps were provided to show current information. No changes were made to any goal or
objective.
Chapter 3 – Future Land Use: Establishes the geography for which the city plans. No
specific time frame of development is represented on the map. Descriptions of land use
designations shown on the map explain general intentions and types of development
expected. Each designation has zoning districts that implement that designation. The names of
those zoning districts have been updated to match with the ongoing update to the Unified
Development Code. The future land use map has been updated to reflect amendments made
since initial adoption and correct minor boundary errors.
Chapter 4 – Implementation: This chapter focuses on how the plan will move from the
written page to reality. Specific metrics to measure progress are identified and a short-term
task list is laid out. No changes to metrics were made. The task list was updated to remove
completed work.
Chapter 5 – Amendments and Review: Any plan evolves over time. This chapter describes
how that should happen and provides some summary information about the state required
process for considering land use plan amendments. It also provides a basic description of the
process for zone map and text amendments and for reviewing site development proposals.
Appendix A – Engagement and Process: A description of the process of completing the
plan initially and this technical update. Added the details of the update process.
Appendix B – Infrastructure and Supporting Data: State law leans heavily on information-
based decision making and planning. New subjects have been added to the content the City
must consider. This appendix has been entirely reformatted to better assemble the data in the
groupings the state provides. It describes the state required subject areas, identifies data
sources related to the subjects and provides some summary descriptions of key information
points. This appendix is a complete replacement to address both subject matter and format
changes.
Appendix C – History and Physical Setting: This chapter has had a minor update to bring it
current for events of the past five years and add some new historic images.
Appendix D – Glossary: Minor changes to improve description of the future land use map
and connect a hyperlink to the map.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
TO ADOPT AN UPDATED BOZEMAN LAND USE PLAN
The City of Bozeman is updating, reviewing, and adopting a Land Use Plan also known as the
Bozeman Community Plan. The City is adopting this plan to comply with the Montana Land Use
Planning Act, Title 76, Chapter 25, Montana Code Annotated (MLUPA). MLUPA requires the
City to adopt a land use plan to identify community priorities and policies regarding the
development of land and to address information necessary to review development applications. It
includes a future land use map showing where different kinds of land uses should be built in the
City and as properties are annexed.
The adopted Land Use Plan, along with any amendments and updates, is the local foundation for
adopting land use regulations that implement the land use plan. These regulations include the
City’s zoning and subdivision regulations, which also must comply with the requirements of
MLUPA. This is the eighth such plan for the City but the first one under MLUPA. This plan is a
technical compliance update. This means that the document is mostly the same as the previously
approved growth policy but has been updated to address new requirements in state law and to
bring to current information about the community. The land use plan is intended to identify the
opportunities for development of land within the planning area for housing, businesses,
agriculture, and the extraction of natural resources, while acknowledging and addressing the
impacts of that development on adjacent properties, the community, the natural environment,
public services and facilities, and natural hazards.
Public engagement is strongly encouraged during the adoption of the Land Use Plan and
implementing regulations. MLUPA limits the scope and opportunity for public participation and
comment on site-specific development. Pursuant to MLUPA, public participation on site
specific development that is in substantial compliance with the Land Use Plan is limited only to
those impacts or significantly increased impacts that were not previously identified and
considered in the adoption, amendment, or update of the Land Use Plan, zoning regulations, or
subdivision regulations.
Pursuant to MLUPA, the Bozeman Planning Commission (Community Development Board) will
review the draft and make recommendations regarding it to the City Commission. The City
Commission is the final decision maker for a Land Use Plan.
The draft document is available through several locations. It is available in hard copy at the
Community Development office at 20 E. Olive St. (2nd floor) or the Bozeman Public Library
reference desk at 626 E. Main St. The draft plan is also available electronically at
engage.bozeman.net/community-plan, or https://www.bozeman.net/departments/community-
development/planning/project-information-portal. Select ‘Project Documents’ and navigate to
application 23333 to view the draft plan. Digital access is also available at the Community
Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT.
The purpose of the public hearings is to discuss the plan and take (hear) public comment on the
draft plan. At the public hearing the Community Development Board may recommend, and the
City Commission may act to: amend any portion of the Land Use Plan or Future Land Use Map
(FLUM); revise supporting appendices; continue the public hearing; add additional public
hearings at their discretion; reject the draft Plan; or adopt the Plan with a Resolution of
Adoption.
The Bozeman Community Development Board in their capacity as the Planning Commission will
conduct a public hearing on the draft plan on Monday, October 6, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Commission room at City Hall 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman MT. It may also be available on
video; and may be broadcast on channel 190, as well as live streamed on the City of Bozeman’s
website, https://www.bozeman.net/departments/city-commission/meeting-videos. Instructions for
joining the meeting remotely will be included on the meeting agenda which is published on the
City’s website at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The agenda is available in the Events portion
of the City’s website at https://www.bozeman.net/home.
The City Commission will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, October 28, 2025, at 6:00 p.m.
in the City Commission room at City Hall 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman MT. It may also be
available on video; and may be broadcast on channel 190, as well as live streamed on the City of
Bozeman’s website, https://www.bozeman.net/departments/city-commission/meeting-videos.
Instructions for joining the meeting remotely will be included on the meeting agenda which is
published on the City’s website at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The agenda is available in
the Events portion of the City’s website at https://www.bozeman.net/home.
At the public hearing the City Commission may act to approve, modify, or reject the
proposal or continue the public hearing to another date. The City Commission may revise
the draft plan referred to in this notice during the public hearing process.
The public may comment orally at the public hearings or in writing at or prior to the public hearings
regarding compliance of this draft plan with the state required criteria found in Montana Code
Annotated sections 76-25-201 subsections (1) through (5) and 76-25-203 through –216. Comments
should identify the specific criteria of concern along with facts in support of the comment. During
the notice period the City will continue review for compliance with applicable regulations.
Comments may be directed via email to comments@bozeman.net. Written comments may be
directed to: City of Bozeman, City Clerk, PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. For those
who require accommodations for disabilities, please contact the ADA Coordinator David
Arnado, at 582-3232. Please reference Bozeman Community Plan Technical Compliance
Update, File 23333 in all correspondence.
Page 1 of 3
APPROVED minutes from June 3, 2021 board meeting
Voted on and approved during September 2, 2021 meeting via WebEx TO DO List:
Everyone attend August 5 board meeting
In attendance: David Fine, Susan Fraser, Jen Madgic, Alicia Ruiz, Tracy Menuez, Emily
Talago, Nolan Campbell, Valerie Wyman
A. Call to Order – Val called the meeting to order at 4:30pm.
B. Changes to agenda – none.
C. Public comment – none.
D. Approval of Minutes
Val motioned approval of May 6 minutes as presented; Nolan seconded the motion. All in
favor. E.1. Action Item – 2006 Design & Connectivity Plan, sunsetting of the
Tom Rogers with City Planning Department presented (see Attachment A). This plan, along
with two others, is going before the Planning Board next week for discussion of sunsetting.
Comments made during next week’s meeting will come back to Midtown board for the next
monthly meeting for continued discussion, comments.
Discussion. Val asked staff to explain what within the 2006 ‘Winter Plan’ is no longer
necessary. David answered he would bring back to the board this information after digging,
finding examples. There are good things about having this history/this plan built into the
full community plan.
Tom confirmed there will be more discussion with Midtown board as well as the planning
board. Val noted it is too early to make a recommendation for sunsetting. Discussion
continued. Commissioner Madgic reminded all that such neighborhood plans are tied to
state statute which adds gravitas, and without such a plan in place the district might lose
position(s) to overall plan. She added it might be best to update it and make it have more
‘teeth’ for future.
More discussion. Nolan asked for an explanation of the mechanism to updating this plan,
i.e. is it a matter of staff time, money to hire it done? David responded that the design
standards are being drafted now, approved in this upcoming year’s budget and work plan,
and those will help keep the vision intact. David noted this is a preliminary discussion.
Tom went onto note that his department’s workload does not allow bandwidth to do such a
plan update. He also added the shift of the NCOD (Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District) might affect Midtown. (FYI: MURB discussed this in Fall 2018 meetings, leading to
a letter to the Commission. See Attachment B).
F. FYI
Susan asked about status of July board meeting, and David said nothing on the horizon requiring board approval. Nolan motioned cancellation of July 1 board meeting; Val
seconded. All in favor. G. Adjournment
Valerie motioned for adjournment at 5:07pm; everyone seconded. All in favor.
From: Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee
To: Bozeman City Commission
Re: Application # 21381 Public Comment with Recommended UDC Update Edits
As a group, we have spent years navigating planning and development issues at the
neighborhood level—sometimes collaboratively, sometimes contentiously—and we still believe
we can align growth with community values if we choose to. With a 500-plus-page draft, most
residents won’t catch problems until the impacts hit their neighborhoods. We’re raising the ones
we already know firsthand are creating harm. These sections need stronger alignment with
reality, and we respectfully request that the proposed edits be considered now.
Our recommendations are based largely on the neighborhood survey conducted prior to, and
presented at, our UDC engagement meeting with the City on January 27, 2025. Bozeman
should not be afraid to push back on state mandates when they undermine local goals, nor
should UDC efforts be approached as something done to neighborhoods rather than with them.
Good planning succeeds when residents feel included, respected, and heard. Neighborhood
concerns are not obstacles; they are data, and they should guide you.
Finally, we recommend re-establishing the Community Development Board’s biannual UDC
review to allow for sensible and timely edits. Thank you for your consideration and for your
continued work on this update.
Respectfully,
Scott Boyd
Michelle Osman
Emily Talago
Noah ten Broek
Midtown Neighborhood Association Steering Committee
Zone Map Conflicts
Recent large-scale demolition and redevelopment has prompted our historic and endearingly
vintage parts of town to think critically about how to protect their sense of place and long-term
investments. Some neighborhoods and businesses now feel they are on the verge of collapse
under the weight of intense urbanization pressure and uncertainty. In response, and out of
concern that the city may be drifting away from its own stated planning values, two
neighborhoods within the NCOD have petitioned for down-zoning. The timing is not random. It
reflects a community seeking stability, clarity, and alignment between policy, process, and the
vision residents have been told to trust.
Infill is not the same thing as redevelopment. For existing built environments, every mismatch
between what already exists and proposed zoning is a ticking time bomb- public outcry, anger,
destabilization- when thuggish development gains approval. Setting aside any requirements
from the NCOD, the neighborhoods flanking N 7th are a mix of housing types- SF, apartments,
duplexes. Nothing above three stories. RB allows 45 feet before AHO incentives and 8 units per
building. RA now 40 feet and 2 units + ADU. These are the next steps for infill- not RC, not RD.
The city’s assignment of B2-M to the state’s 60-foot “heavy commercial” category between Main
and Tamarack adds another mismatch. “Mixed” is largely nominal—there’s no requirement for
mixed use. A district like B1 or B3-C would better support neighborhood-serving commercial
activity, especially if heights above three stories step down to respect existing context. North of
Tamarack, larger commercial makes sense; it transitions with direct access to Oak street arterial
and the interstate, drawing from a regional customer base. This correction also better reflects
the longstanding goals of the N 7th Design and Connectivity Plan.
The B-3. Experience has taught us: the B-3 extension beyond Babcock and Mendenhall is less
halo and more hernia. Please read the draft’s purpose of the B-3 and ask yourself if we’re
meeting those goals, particularly beyond the halo, and assess where 90 feet might reasonably
cause some tension. B-3 should be complimentary, not cancerous.
The incessant and ideological pursuit of ultra high density for Midtown is strange- it has no
transit station, and is not in proximity to our two largest employers and heavily frequented areas-
Deaconess Hospital and MSU. Per MDT, safe performance of N 7th is rapidly deteriorating.
Parkland
On April 10, 2017, the Commission established criteria for evaluating CIL requests. At that time,
commissioners noted the need for small public spaces as downtown and surrounding
neighborhoods densify, and anticipated that parkland and open space requirements would be
strengthened during the upcoming UDC overhaul. Eight years and multiple UDC edits later, that
work remains undone.
The 2023 PRAT Plan (Goal 1) calls for maintaining the city’s current level of parkland per
resident (17 acres per 1,000 residents), creating consistent neighborhood park elements, and
ensuring parks reflect the identities of the neighborhoods they serve. Yet the Midtown and
Northside area- where infill has been the most intense, and where CIL is used most frequently-
has seen a net loss of neighborhood-type parkland, with more land shifting toward special-use
improvements.
Large multifamily projects now rely on private property to function as de-facto dog runs because
no public alternatives exist. This inequity shows up in everyday life, especially in the form of
increasing “dog pressure” on private lawns, gardens, or landscaping, if you catch our drift.
Please consider adding pet-focused open-space requirements for multifamily projects; revising
the 12-unit-per-acre cap used in CIL calculations; and ensuring that when pocket or
neighborhood parks cannot be provided on-site, CIL amounts are sufficient to allow the city to
acquire land and invest in meaningful neighborhood-serving park space.
Transportation Standards
Traffic conversations in Bozeman require nuance. Standards should be a starting point—not
something abandoned by administrative discretion without broad visibility or justification. The
contrast between the Peach Street (N 7th–5th) project and the College Street project shows
inconsistencies in process and engagement across different parts of town.
A failing level of service is not merely an inconvenience—it increases risky driver behavior.
Lowering the minimum acceptable LOS from C to D can work when the community understands
and supports a broader goal, but that change must occur through a transparent public process.
Moreover, changing the design year from 15 years to 5 years directly transfers costs from the
developer to the public. No valid reason has been given for this significant change.
Additionally, there are no justifications given for expanding the existing exceptions for meeting
LOS standards and allowing for administrative authority to waive compliance with the standards.
The existing exceptions should suffice without adding an open-ended, non-standards-based
exception. If such an exception is desired, it should be the commission that grants one and not
staff.
Please do not change LOS standards or make unilateral mitigation decisions outside a public
forum. These are significant, material changes that warrant public input and discussion,
particularly when all of the changes are to the benefit of development at the expense of the
public.
Parking Requirements
Zero-parking allowances in the corridor have repeatedly been abused, creating impacts that
Midtown residents disproportionately shoulder. The city should reinstate sensible parking
minimums and avoid incorporating HB 492 exemptions before they are legally required. Those
state mandates take effect in October 2026. Until then, we have an opportunity—and an
obligation—to design a fair, strategic curb-management and structured-parking approach, rather
than cementing avoidable problems.
Summary of Suggested Edits:
Zone Map Changes:
● Centennial and BonTon as requested
● Re-zone N. 7th URD/B2-M from Main to at least Peach (possibly Tamarack) as B1
○ Or a Midtown version of B3-C
● Re-zone residential East/West of N 7th to RA/RB, incremental to current built
● Restrict B-3 to halo around Main Street: Mendenhall, Babcock
Draft Text Changes:
● Table 38.420.020-1. Increase 12 unit/acre maximums to 60
● 38.530.020.L. Edit snow removal storage area- increase minimum percentage from 15 to
50% unless haul off contract is filed with the city
● 38.400.060.B.3. Edit Mitigation of Transportation Impacts to maintain min LOS C, and
strike a.(1-3.) exceptions
● 38.530.040.A.1.a Strike Midtown Urban Renewal District from list of exempt from parking
requirements
Midtown Neighborhood Association
Unified Development Code Update Meeting
Monday January 27th, 2025
Whittier Elementary School
Agenda
Welcome from Emily Talago / Introductions from Commissioners and Staff
Orientation to the Community Development viewer- slide showing the many layers of midtown and show people
how to find out where zoning/district designations are. These designations are what govern the "form" of the built
environment and its "use"- how is the space used. Forms versus use, organic v. prescribed.
Share Midtown concerns and questions
Form & Use
What is the best planning tool to establish criteria for Midtown area as a district without being
prescriptive to other areas of town? Midtown specific zoning? District overlay? Expanding the
existing NCOD? Other ideas?
Would the city allocate the resources to work with stakeholders to create the code language?
NCOD: Geographic Boundary & Standards
Why does the city want to change the NCOD? Is there a new issue in enforcing the standards?
Parking Supply
What, if any, role do you think the city should play in managing or creating parking supply?
Are streets (public right of way parking) reconstruction and maintenance assessed based on
parcel frontage or lot size?
Infrastructure & Service Capacity
Who is responsible for inspecting and maintaining on-site stormwater maintenance facilities?
Does the city have the resources for parking management/enforcement 24/7?
What resources are available for enforcement of "peaceful enjoyment" codes regulating things
like excessive noise, light, or other nuisances that detract from peaceful enjoyment of the home?
Does the city have resources or authority to add sidewalks where there are currently none?
Open Space & Parks
Can we require large developments to bring parkland or open space with them? Is there any land
available to increase the supply of park space?
Mature Trees & Vegetation
Public right of way vs. private property
Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO)
Changes currently underway
A Different Approach
Evaluate vision and goals sensitivity to the people who are already living here
What is the best planning tool to establish criteria for Midtown area as a district without being prescriptive
to other areas of town? Midtown specific zoning? District overlay? Expanding the existing NCOD? Other
ideas?
Would the city allocate the resources to work with stakeholders to create the planning tool? Budget and
deadline?
Thank you for attending. To stay informed on the UDC Update process, sign up online at engage.bozeman.net
Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>
Midtown UDC meeting
Emily Talago <emilytalago@gmail.com>Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:04 AM
To: Emily Kiely <ekiely@bozeman.net>
Hi Emily,
Based on the results of the survey, I don't think it's time to dig into specific code language (parcel assembly, reduced
alley setbacks, floor area ratios, etc). Over a third of respondents don't know what their zoning or district designations
are, so I've rewritten my outline to try and keep us out of the weeds. Questions follow the concerns.
Emily T - Orientation to the Community Development viewer- slide showing the many layers of midtown and show
people how to find out where zoning/district designations are. These designations are what govern the "form" of the
built environment and its "use"- how is the space used. Forms versus use, organic v. prescribed.
City- Relevant changes in state legislature
Concern: Form- buildings of large mass and scale, height, especially when they lack neighborhood commercial.
Setbacks and parking requirements constraining infill ADUs, backyard cottages, etc. Use- Dispensaries, nuisance
properties (noise, light).
Residents are concerned the city "wants us to sell and leave" or wants to "replace us and our homes" with a new mid-
rise urban built environment.
As Bozeman grows and changes, we lack natural district definition from things like water courses, parks, open space,
topography change, etc. so we are left to engineer our own built boundaries. Both existing and proposed zoning
designation/overlay districts do not always match the historic development pattern and are disjointed in places. We
have the N.7th Design and Connectivity Plan, the NCOD, the Midtown URD, the Neighborhood Association, and a
whole festival of different zoning. Acknowledging that Bozeman is not and has not been developed under the same
regulations over time, other core historic districts (downtown and core adjacent) have their own specific district-scale
zoning.
(We will keep these questions in mind and circle back to them at the end once we've considered all the rest of the
concerns)
-What is the best planning tool to establish criteria for Midtown area as a district without being prescriptive to other
areas of town? Midtown specific zoning? District overlay? Expanding the existing NCOD? Other ideas?
-Would the city allocate the resources to work with stakeholders to create the code language?
Concern: The map wants to reduce the NCOD boundary and recent rumors that the district will be dissolved or no
longer enforced.
Why does the city want to change the NCOD? Is there a new issue in enforcing the standards?
Concern: Parking supply being disordered and overwhelmed- and as an extension, the tensions introduced from
competition for a resource.
What, if any, role do you think the city should play in managing or creating parking supply?
Are streets (public right of way parking) reconstruction and maintenance assessed based on parcel frontage or lot
size?
Concern: Limited infrastructure and service capacity (including enforcement).
Who is responsible for inspecting and maintaining on-site stormwater maintenance facilities?
Does the city have the resources for parking management/enforcement 24/7?
What resources are available for enforcement of "peaceful enjoyment" codes regulating things like excessive noise,
light, or other nuisances that detract from peaceful enjoyment of the home. Does this have to be handled through civil
litigation?
Does the city have resources or authority to add sidewalks where there are currently none?
Concern: Lack of open space or public park/recreation space. Local park space is limited and dominated by specific
uses that serve the larger community over local residents. This, paired with large numbers of new neighbors, results in
diminishing access to walkable recreation space.
Can we require large developments to bring parkland or open space with them? Is there any land available to increase
the supply of park space?
Concern: Destruction of mature trees and vegetation. Our urban tree canopy and vegetation are a diverse mix with a
median maturity of approx 80 years. Several streets lacking boulevards have mature trees fronting the public right of
way, with benefits enjoyed by many though they are on private property. Thus, the city is not party to their
maintenance and preservation.
I have no idea how to address this as a question other than potential conservation easements?
Concern: The AHO incentivizes a very specific type of product that tends to "suck all the air out of the room" and is
out of balance with other priorities that vary within city boundaries. It also trips up the entire point of predictability
provided by code standards in a random fashion....thinking of the claw arcade machine..."will it be me?" Let's not do
that.
Can we please keep that wild card out of Midtown?
Idea: Can we do this differently? We want to! It seems like there are many things that can be done to:
-Correct outstanding externalities from recent "experiments"
-Simplify and streamline the development process for things under a certain threshold of mass/scale/intensity of use
-Redirect resources from contentious projects to ones that help us grow together without leaving people behind or
pushing people out
-Leverage parallel improvements
-Incentivize neighborhood commercial
-Evaluate vision and goals sensitivity to the people who are already living here
-What is the best planning tool to establish criteria for Midtown area as a district without being prescriptive to other
areas of town? Midtown specific zoning? District overlay? Expanding the existing NCOD? Other ideas?
-Would the city allocate the resources to work with stakeholders to create the planning tool? Budget and deadline?
If you or any staff have questions, could you please call or text my phone? 484-866-0029.
Thanks!
[Quoted text hidden]
Neighborhood Features by Importance
Neighborhood Features cont.
“Views” “Safety” “Safety and community” “Safety for schoolchildren” “Character”
“Diversity. Our neighborhood is economically diverse.” “Trees. Safe streets and well-maintained sidewalks. Clean air.”
“When adding my addition on N 5h street I was only able to go up two stories and would expect anybody else building to be held to the same standards. All the
neighbors around me and N. 5th have been working for years to preserve an authentic Bozeman neighborhood we all know, and look out for one another, this is
manageable now”
“quality of life. Up keep of houses and yards” “Quiet streets and residential neighborhood, not commercial buildings.”
“Enough parking for my family and visitors” “Availability of ease of getting around , ease of emergency vehicles getting around”
“The people I've known living here for 30 years, though they are moving away some, because of too much chaos, development, traffic, and taxes going up.”
“Inclusive neighborhood. Options for all Bozeman residents to live, work, play in our neighborhood . Mixed use, residential and commercial uses.”
“Low level of light pollution, construction noise, noise, air pollution from outdoor barbecuing and fires”
“Hight of buildings and capacity density. Do they match the others in the neighborhood and maintain neighborhoods character. Safety of the streets especially in the
winter when streets seems to become 1 lane. Parking. Urban planning that meets current infrastructure or infrastructure planning to meet city planning growth
desires in neighborhoods. Maintenance of the natural world. Current planning seems to be on trajectory to promote nature deficit.”
“Greenspace, parks, recreation space, community gardens” “View of the mountains, and sunlight”
“I like the Urban-ness of this neighborhood and the fact that it is close to 7th and DT and I also want neighborhoods to remain, a good mix is perfect and this should
take into account the access to sky/light/space/parks. This should also take into account the need for parking in this area. I wish there was a bit more greenspace
in this neighborhood--the city should consider the currently open lot on beall and 5th as a new urban park instead of developing this land...this could help with less
congestion from parking and for outdoor space.”
“Parks, shade trees and conservation of Mandeville Creek” “The enforcement of building codes and noise ordinances for businesses.”
“only having 2 to 3 story homes”
“I would like more open space. We don't have many parks in our neighborhood. Particularly that aren't disconnected with fairly busy streets like 7th, Durston and
Main.”
Neighborhood Development Concerns cont.
“The Intersection of N 5th Ave and Villard cannot safely allow a surge in increased traffic” “loss of sunlight” “Safety for Children”
“The change in property value just makes my taxes go up. I don't plan to sell so I don't care what it's worth beyond a place to live.”
“Loss of community”
“Way less bikeable. Increased "legal" nighttime light pollution, e.g., from the windows of the One-Eleven 2 Bldg. and all the other high-rises. Loss of privacy from
high-rises looking down into folks' back yards. Reduced sunlight in winter from excessive building height. No protection for the sunlight needed for those who have
solar panels. The sheer ugliness and sterility of the North Central development and similar high-rises. No setbacks or step-backs or zone-edge transitions required
for high-rises. More high-rise heat islands are being built, thus reducing Bozeman's climate resilience.”
“Development not related to needs - affordable housing v luxury” “Impact on safety and congestion” “Safety of school children with increased traffic”
“With regard to traffic, volume is less concerning than vehicle speed. More volume is expected as our city grows and different uses come to our neighborhood.
Controlling the speed of the vehicles is the safety issue, not total volume.”
“absent homeowners (lack of shoveling), resident turnover prohibits community”
“Changes in neighborliness. There are a number of local, owner-operated long term rentals, ADUs, and "illegal" subdivisions with multiple tenants on my block, none
of which are a problem. Yet, there are also large-scale buildings on nearby streets which do not add to knowing neighbors”
“Dump Trucks and heavy machinery going through our school zones. Construction workers taking neighborhood parking . Businesses parking in our neighborhood.”
“Capacity of Durston esp the 7th and 15th intersections. When those lights back up we have disgruntled people turning right onto 9th and 10th and speeding to
avoid the lights. Buffers between commercial high density and residential low density.”
“We need to keep all the existing trees and plant more trees.” “Parking” “loss of mountain views, loss of sunlight”
“The invasion of high rise buildings and the commissioners caving to builders.” “Lack of traffic control on Mendenhall west of 7th”
“Economic justice. I am concerned that the Mayor (at the Guthrie vote) expressed an opinion or plan to densely develop only certain parts of the City (adjacent to
downtown). Based on what? If the entire city is connected with trails, and is bike-able, has bus access, etc.it seems that all neighborhoods, regardless of wealth and
diversity should share the burden of density (high rises, noise, added traffic and pollution).”
What kinds of things might cause you to consider leaving the neighborhood?
“crime, traffic, noise, loss of sunlight” “Traffic, extreme changes in density, esp in the residential cores.”
“Ugly 5 story apartment buildings with inadequate parking” “Traffic and safety issues”
“if the neighborhood starts to change with high density multi use family units, traffic and noise” “Higher density, Crime, Construction”
“Loss of community” “Over crowded. Loss of the current neighborhood feeling. Excess traffic. Loss of views due to tall buildings.” “No longer feeling safe.”
“Someday I'll die.”
“we are not leaving. We helped build the neighborhood into a new generation tight community” “Living in canyon. Lack of parking.”
“Density that impacts children’s safety in the neighborhood and school.” “Cost of living, increased traffic, loss of public spaces like schools, parks, or library.”
“Too busy and congested with All the new multifamily apartments off of 3rd and Peach as well as all the Elm Events parking and foot traffic. Who wants strangers
trying to have Sex on their front lawn like last summer, people trying to start a fire by the back fence when they were going to the Elm. Etc etc etc”
“not enough parking, buildings that are totally out of character”
“In 2022, the one-half block due east of us was rezoned from R-4 to B-3--and a year or so later, all of the houses and the apt building on that one-half block were
scraped. Likely, it's only a matter of time before a 100-ft tall building will be proposed across the street from me--with no set-back or step-back or zone-edge
transition requirements. That'll be it, for sure, and we'll leave.”
“Overpriced, lack of parking” “I'm elderly and unable to move.” “The Guthrie”
“Too many people, not enough infrastructure, traffic, safety, noise, no parks, lack of amenities. Not walkable. Too much construction disruption.”
“Unsustainable disturbance from too much activity "after hours". Already my part of the neighborhood handles poorly managed early am and night crowds from BHS
activities, as campus infrastructure does not follow planning norms in handling its traffic/parking/deliveries, etc. (e.g. unscreened parking lots along North 11th
avenue), etc”
“Property tax; noise; light pollution; high density; high rise buildings - we have enough!!!”
“Short term rentals. We need affordable housing for blue collar families. For example, the City of Bozeman has a need for housing for its water and street
maintenance professionals and their families. Let's focus on that.”
“Nothing. I love Midtown”
Is there anything that would make you more likely to consider adding gentle infill to your property?
● “I think rooms above garages and small ADUs are just fine”
● “not at this time. We don't care to take on any new debt”
● “grant monies”
● “Some way to pay for it. I'm on fixed income, so can't borrow more money, but rental income from an apartment over
the garage would help.”
● “Once the kids are grown we might rent the basement again.”
● “No.”
● “Yes - money; if infill was in character of my 1950 house”
● “We would consider it again”
● “Can I get the zoning developers do? Shallow setbacks sound good.”
● “For Family only!”
● “I would love for the city to create support for a designer/developer to create a few varieties of pre-designed pre-built
options for garages with dwelling units. I would love to support low income housing by receiving support from the city
for the permitting, building and instillation of this unit and committing myself to renting this unit for a set number of
years at a market rate price for low-income tenants.”
● “Financial incentives”
● “No.”
● “Not at my age (80)”
● “We have a ADU with a 600 square foot second story apartment. It's off the alley between 9th and 10th it has its own
parking spot and is frankly a wonderful apartment. That being said my husband is a builder and navigating that
process was not simple.”
● “No.”
● “Not really”
● “Money!”
Do you have any additional questions about development and zoning that you’d like to discuss at our meeting?
● “The conservation overlay district was created for a reason, to protect authentic Bozeman neighborhoods from
changing. I’d like to have the cities help too continue to maintain such districts in order to preserve these older parts
of Bozeman.”
● “I think rezoning a neighborhood should only change if the neighborhood votes it, not the city”
● “Do not change the NCOD boundaries...that is moving the goalposts.”
● “Becoming a landmark area.”
● “Will the NCOD still exist after the UDC update is completed? How will the proposed new AHO be integrated into the
proposed UDC update and the existing NCOD (note that early indications from the CDB hearing on Jan 13 are that all
such developments cannot be challenged by the Commission and will be rubber-stamped by Community
Development and Economic Development Depts.)? How can the Commission--in good conscience--be willing to give
up its ultimate review authority of AHO projects? Does all of the above effectively result in developers becoming the
de facto decision-makers and thus having carte blanche within the NCOD?”
● “Would City ever consider a one year moratorium to stop and take a breath and assess - We have 10 NEW Higher rise
buildings within several blocks, with at least two more in the works. In the summer the construction noise level is
disturbing - including amplified music blasting all day and incessant beeping. The new buildings are not even fully
occupied - We are seriously considering moving!!! Which apparently is exactly what the City wants us to do!!”
● “One building (the Guthrie) will effect an entire neighborhood with cars needing parking”
● “Thank you for your efforts to find reasonable solutions.”
● “Why are there Dispensaries on nearly every corner of North 7th and why is the Elm allowed to be non compliant with
the noise ordinances? What exactly is Mayor Cunningham’s “Vision for Midtown “?”
● “Not at this time.”
● “How does the lack of covenants / HOA restrictions interplay with changes in the development code particular to our
neighborhood?”
● “What the zone R3 means. Thank you :)”
● “Parking, building height-nothing over 4 stories”
● “No thank you. I will leave the questions to the young people in the neighborhood”
● “I'd like to understand why the North side neighborhoods seem to be targeted for demolition. Is this planning
"science"? (And why the City Commission is made up of - I am guessing - all South side denizens that appear to think
the north side is expendable.) I'd also like to understand why demolishing existing low cost rentals in favor of newly
constructed million dollar part-time occupied buildings, and high rise apartments housing Air BnB tourists and part
time rentals are at the core of the City's development plan. I'd like to explore if the City can enforce building the
promised affordable housing on a reasonable timeline. *Example: The empty block of Grant/Third/Lamme/Beall. That
block was razed pre-pandemic and is still empty / rented for $$ as a construction lay-down yard. How does that
benefit the City and the residents? I'd like to advocate for long term affordable housing vs. extended stay hotel
models of housing. And, I'd like to advocate for enforcement of what is promised by developers; via bonds, for
example. And, lastly, I'd ask for help in safeguarding the safety of residents during the high-rise construction projects.
(Traffic, noise, air quality, loss of trees and light.) We feel invisible to the City decision makers.”
● “Seems like there is a large area being zoned one way, or with intentions to have it all re-developed. I'm in favor of
more variability in the zoning if possible. My lot already has a triplex on it. Both of my neighbors are multi-unit. There
are other Multi's across the street. So, while I am not in favor of having all of the single family properties in the
neighborhood flipped into multi-units, I would like to retain my zoning designation and be able to make more use of
the lot.”
MIDTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Overview
•Formed January 21, 2020
•Renamed from North Seventh Association of Neighbors (NSAN)
•Character- History
•Postwar era workforce construction, diverse housing types
•Emphasis on automotive culture and services
•Gallatin Valley Creamery Coop
•Character- Pride and Values
•Whittier Elementary, Bozeman High School
•Hard working, resilient community
•Neighborhood church
•Families and friendships, diversity
•Outdoor living space
•Mature trees and vegetation
•Westlake Park- BMX, memorial and community gardens
Land Use Layers
•N. 7th Design & Connectivity
•Midtown Urban Renewal District
•Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(NCOD)
•Zoning, Unified Development Code (UDC)
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
Concerns
-Changes to the NCOD boundary
-Consistent application of standards
Questions
-Why does the city want to change the NCOD?
-Is there a new issue in applying the standards?
PARKING SUPPLY
Concerns
-Parking supply being disordered and
overwhelmed- and as an extension, the tensions
introduced from competition for a resource
Questions
-What, if any, role do you think the city should play
in managing or creating parking supply?
-Are streets (public right of way parking)
reconstruction and maintenance assessed based on
parcel frontage or lot size?
PARKING SUPPLY
INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICE CAPACITY
Concerns
-Traffic & Safety
Questions
-Traffic Enforcement
-Design for multi-modal
RECREATION -PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Concerns
-Diminishing access for local residents
Questions
-Can we require large developments
to bring parkland or open space with
them? Is there any land available to
increase the supply of park space?
TREES & MATURE VEGETATION
Concerns
-Destruction of mature trees and vegetation
-Outside of the public right-of-way
Questions
-Is there a way to protect?
FORM & USE- UNDERBUILT
Concerns
-Current Zoning v. Existing Built Environment
-Why are we underbuilt?
Questions
-When is growth unhealthy?
-Can we grow together?
-What’s the best tool?
-Are there resources for it?
THANK YOU!
❖Evaluate goals with sensitivity to the goals and dreams of others
❖Talk to us
❖Simplify and streamline the development process for things under a certain threshold
of mass/scale/intensity of use
❖Redirect resources from contentious projects to ones that help us grow together
❖Don’t push people out
❖Leverage parallel improvements
❖Streets, water, sewer
❖Incentivize neighborhood commercial and compatible uses on ground floors of N. 7th
Motor Vehicle Accidents