HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-03-26 Public Comment - K. Filipovich- For Community Development Board - Zone Edge TransitionsFrom:Karen Filipovich
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]For Community Development Board - Zone Edge Transitions
Date:Monday, August 3, 2026 11:05:23 AMAttachments:image.png
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 Community Development Board Members:
On July 20 and July 27, two "Walk with a Commissioner" events were held, touring a portion of the B-3 edge, focused on Zone Edge
Transitions.
I helped develop a questionnaire designed to gather input from community members who attended those two walks. A final summary will
be submitted ahead of the commissioners' working meeting on August 25th. This summary of points is preliminary, and the questionnaire
is still open for participants. I hope that this input will be helpful for the Community Development Board meeting on August 3.
Over the two walks, three city commissioners led the walk. Participants mentioned living in or near B-3, B-M2, REMU, and NEHMU
commercial or mixed-use zones and RA, RB, RC, and RD residential zones.
As of this writing on August second, 26 responses have been recorded. No answer was required, so the number of responses to individual
questions varied.
Overall Messages:
There is strong support for transitions between areas of significantly different density.
The participants were diverse in their perspectives and experience with transitions. From the introductions, almost all lived on or
near a potential zone edge transition (ZET). These included REMU, NEHMU, B-3, and B-M2 to RA, RB, RC, and RD zones.
Details matter and there are a lot of different perspectives on when those transitions should be triggered, and which transition
requirements would be most helpful.
Zone Edge Transition Right of Way (ROW). This discussion was held as part of a discussion of the B-3 transition across streets.
There was a significant range of comments on what an appropriate right of way would be, from 10' to 120.' Of those who put in a number
that this point, 5 indicated they would like to see transitions triggered at a ROW between 10-30 feet, 4 indicated 60', and 6 had numbers
ranging from 90-120'.
However, there were several comments that suggested other potential measures for thinking about when a transition should occur. Three
had alternate measure for determining the right of way: 1) a sliding scale ROW relative to the height of the building and 2) a less than a
50 degree transition between the base of the ROW to the top of the higher building to preserve access to sunlight; and 3) ROW is the same
as the higher building height (e.g. a 90' building = a 90' ROW).
Mitigation strategies were also mentioned here, including ideas for parklands, landscaping requirements, setbacks, stepbacks, height
restrictions, and measures aimed at ensuring that the transition took into account neighborhood integrity or aesthetics.
Specific Transition Measures
Participants were asked to identify any transition mitigation measures they thoughts would be helpful. The list was generated by looking at
the types of measures that are currently in the UDC as well as additional measures that neighbors living near the current B-3 transition
generated. Participants were also given an "other" option that could be filled in with additional ideas.
All but one respondent identified one or more transition measures including, setbacks, stepbacks, landscaping, privacy, noise, construction,
and enforcement measures.
A subset of participants also offered further details on their choices. These included comments in these areas:
Privacy and Impact Mitigation: Visual intrusion, noise, and light were the major identified challenges that transition requirements
could address.
Building Design and Setbacks: Implementing effective transitions between zones requires thoughtful use of setbacks and stepbacks,
with suggestions to base stepback heights on adjacent wall plates rather than roof peaks to better respect established neighborhood
scales.
Construction Management and Ongoing Maintenance: Construction phase issues including work hours, noise, air pollution from
idling equipment, property damage to adjacent properties, and loss of street use and/or parking were identified as challenges.
Development Philosophy and Property Rights: Perspectives vary significantly, with a range of responses from stringent
requirements to identification of property rights concerns for owners on either side of transition areas.
Community Engagement:
In some locales, mandatory conversations with neighbors or neighborhood groups are used to build solutions that satisfy the needs of the
developer and neighborhood. Would this be useful in Bozeman? If so, what ideas do you have that could work here? (MT state law
(MLUPA) does restrict some kinds of engagement and does not require incorporation of feedback while a project is being approved.) 22
responses
Support for Engagement: Many respondents favor mandatory or structured consultations between developers and neighbors to
foster communication, build consensus, and identify project impacts. Approaches including meeting during early design stages, using
group workshops for deviations, or adapting the notice requirements used for affordable housing. Suggestions for who to include
ranged from
Accountability and Process: There is a call for greater transparency in the planning process. Suggestions include requiring
developers to report on conversations and agreed-upon changes to commissioners, and mandating that the City formally record
public feedback and provide justifications when that feedback is not incorporated into project approvals.
Regulatory and Practical Barriers: Several respondents raise concerns regarding the feasibility of mandatory meetings, citing
potential conflicts with state law (MLUPA), existing objective zoning codes, and the risk that neighborhood opposition may impede
necessary density and infill development. Others emphasize that existing public noticing and comment opportunities are sufficient,
arguing that mandatory engagement might not be appropriate or effective for every project.
Maximum Height of B-3 Buildings. Respondents were given the option of 90' (current UDC as of Feb. 1, 2026), 70' (UDC prior to Feb 1,
2026), 60' (state law), or other.
Adding or subtracting existing transition zones
Are there any zones that do not have transition requirements that should have transitions? Are there zones with transition requirements
that should be removed? (Please write in the specific zone to zone transition and any details.)
Mandatory and Enhanced Transitions: There is strong support for requiring transitions whenever higher-density zones adjoin lower-
density areas, regardless of whether they are separated by property lines or public rights-of-way.
Code Amendments for Flexibility: Suggestions were made to refine the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow new structures
on burdened parcels without triggering transition requirements. The overall scale of the development parcel, like constrained
parcels of B-3, was mentioned as a possible option to provide flexibility.
Specific Zoning Concerns: Respondents identified problematic areas, such as the Northeast Neighborhood and the relationship
between B-3 and R-A zones, where current regulations are viewed as insufficient or absent. Concerns were raised regarding light
pollution, noise from generators, and the visual impact of high-density vertical walls encroaching on lower-density housing.
Management and Planning: Perspectives on policy vary, with some advocating for active city management and a cohesive vision for
density stepping [Note: generally meant zone steps, e.g. B-3 to RD or RC, to RB to RA]rather than relying solely on strict code
requirements, while others emphasize that existing dysfunction stems from non-incremental zoning development.
Build Examples of Transitions:
What is an example of a good transition in Bozeman? A problematic one? Why? (Any descriptions and approximate areas of town would be
helpful to include.)
Design elements for successful transitions: Effective transitions prioritize human-scale features such as step-backs, building
placement, and aesthetic buffering. Successful examples often incorporate landscaping, tree boulevards, varied roof lines, and the
use of parking or open space to create distance between high-density developments and single-family homes.
Intrusive impacts of density: Problematic transitions are frequently characterized by monolithic building mass, excessive height, and
poor placement of balconies or windows that invade the privacy of adjacent residential properties. Concerns were specifically raised
regarding increased noise, unwanted lighting, and the lack of sunlight reaching neighboring lots.
Specific development examples: Projects cited for good design include the Armory building’s Mendenhall step-back, the apartment
complex at Beall and N. Grand for its privacy features, and The Village Downtown for its use of open space and townhouses.
Conversely, The Ives, other buildings in the old medical arts redevelopment, and properties on Lamme and Beall Streets were
identified as problematic due to their scale and intrusive impact on surrounding residential areas.
Questions and Comments for the Commissioners.
Overall, comments fell into several categories:
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhoods, Future Buildings, and Scale
Vegetation and Setbacks
Development Standards
Planning and Oversight: Feedback reflects a desire for greater clarity on the interplay between current codes (such as NCOD and
UDC) and the planning process.
Thank you for considering the thoughts of this thoughtful group of participants.
Sincerely,
Karen Filipovich