Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2026 Public Comment - K. Filipovich - Zone Edge Transition (ZET) Requirements From: Karen Filipovich To: Bozeman Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL]Zone Edge Transition(ZET)Requirements Date: Thursday,August 20,2026 1:18:47 PM Attachments: ZETcomments08.20.26.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. Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and Commissioners: I am writing about zone edge transition (ZET) requirements. I am in support of reopening and reconsidering that section of the UDC to better meet the stated purpose; "[t]o help mitigate the impacts of taller buildings on lower intensity zoning districts." (38.060.070) The 2026 transition requirements are an improvement over the 2018 version of transition requirements. I am grateful to see that some of the lessons learned from built examples have been applied. Clarifying and refining the ZET requirements that were adopted in 2026 would further improve mitigation of impacts. "Section 38.800.100 - 1 definitions" does not have a definition of "intensity." Based on the zone combination for different required transitions cases shown in Table 38.060.070-1 - Required District Transitions, intensity appears to involve three factors: • Difference in heights of building envelopes of the subject and abutting zones • Differences in the maximum allowed number of units or differences of mass/scale between zones • Differences in allowed uses that could be or are incompatible (table of uses: sec 38.300.020) It would be helpful to have further clarification about what intensity means in this context so that transition requirements are more clearly delineated. Suggestions for 1a and 1b transition requirement cases: 1b introduces required landscaping along lot line and alley transitions, with larger setbacks to accommodate mature trees, as compared to 1a requirements. Please maintain the 1b ground setback and landscaping changes in all zoning combinations that are in the current UDC. In addition, please consider changing the requirements for setbacks and landscaping from 1a to 1b in the following zone combinations to improve the consistency of mitigation measures across zone combinations. Suggested Changes from 1a to 1b Ground Setback and Landscaping Standards Subject Abutting Reasons for suggested changes Zone Zone(s) RD RA, RB, Height differential is the same as several current 1b zone combinations, presence of wall plate is the same as several current 1b zone combinations. Significant density change. B-1 RA Allowed use changes are significant, significant density change. REMU RA, RB Height differential is the same as several current 1b zone (res) combinations, presence of wall plate is the same as several current 1b zone combinations. Significant density change. REMU RA, RB Height differential is the same as several current 1b zone (mx) combinations, presence of wall plate is the same as several current 1b zone combinations, and changes in allowed uses. Significant density change. NEHMU RA, RB Height differential, presence of wall plate, and differences in (mx) allowed uses. Significant density change. RC* RA The height differential is the same as NEHMU(mx), significant density change. M-1, M- RA, RB Prohibit zone combinations as adjacent zones. If impossible, 2, B-P strengthen ZET requirements beyond 1b due to incompatible uses. * RC to RA doesn't have a transition requirement currently listed, but height differential is like NEHMU(mx), with the ability to add six times the maximum combination of units as RA. Additional considerations for 1a and 1b transition requirements: • Set stepback at the maximum wall plate for RA and RB:The stepback height for 1a and 1b transition requirements are set at the maximum building height of abutting districts. However, the wall plates for RA and RB are significantly lower, and the rest of the height is a peaked roof. This will provide better mitigation of the difference in heights for people who live in the lower intensity neighborhoods and for travel along the streets. • Additional transition requirements for historic and landmark districts. According to the City of Bozeman, "[p]reservation goes beyond saving old buildings, it creates a unique sense of place, a sense of community and bridges the gap between the past and our future." In order to meet that objective, these special areas require ZET mitigation at a higher level than other redevelopment areas, especially since the height of historic districts are not likely to reach the current building envelope because we want these special areas preserved. • Additional transition requirements for zones that allow 90' heights.Three zoning districts currently can be built to the height of 90': B-3, B-2(regional commercial & services), and B-P(regional commercial & services). Further consideration of which combination of measures such as a deeper setback at the ground level, a shorter setback height, deeper stepback, and/or additional landscaping beyond the already required boulevard requirements is the optimal mitigation solution will require additional modeling. • Encourage or require ground floor residential where the zone change between a business and residential district is across the street. Having residential uses on streets that demarcate business to residential zone changes helps connect the two zones. Suggested changes for 2a to 2b transition requirements 2b standards have required landscaping and a larger setback to accommodate mature trees. There are no stepback requirements in the current standards, since the wall plates are allowed to rise to the flat roof. Please maintain all 2b transition standards and consider moving the following zone combination from 2a to 2b. Suggested Changes from 2a to 2b Setback and Landscaping Standards Subject Abutting Reasons for suggested changes Zone Zone(s) B-2 RD, REMU (res) Differences in allowed uses, relative overall size of permitted buildings. In case of regional commercial & services designation for B-2, significant height difference. B-P RD, REMU(res) Differences in allowed uses, relative size of permitted buildings. In case of regional commercial & services designation for B-P, significant height difference. M-2 B-2M Differences in allowed uses, no large differences in height, density, or allowed uses from other B class zones that have 2b transitions. M-1, RC, RD, Prohibit combinations as adjacent zones. If impossible, M-2, B- REMU(res&mx) strengthen ZET transition requirements beyond 2b due to P incompatible uses. Right of Way (ROW)Transition Requirement Triggers In the current UDC, right of way (ROW) is set at 60 feet. This will trigger transition requirements as listed in that section of the UDC. According to planning staff, this is the approximate distance of a modern residential street, boulevard, sidewalk, and 1 foot buffer. Two major challenges to using 60 foot ROW as a universal trigger that would provide adequate mitigation have been identified: 1. The height variance currently being mitigated with a single ROW trigger is large. Currently it varies from 45 feet (B-1) to 90 feet (B-3, B-2 (regional commercial & services), B-P (regional & commercial services)). This is a 100% difference in heights. It is unlikely that a one size fits all ROW provides adequate mitigation across the range of heights in the zones subject to transition requirements. 2. The solution of using 60 feet as a work around for mitigation along the narrowest right of ways in the oldest part of town opens the door to messy and potentially costly responses. Staff have pointed out that a developer could cede a strip of land to the city (typically less than 10 feet, according to my measurements of several streets on the current ZET) and thus avoid transition requirements across a street. Since it would be public land, the City will lose property taxes on these strips. It is likely the city will need to maintain those strips, since they are now public. They aren't large enough to be parks, so they are unlikely to have significant public benefit. There is also concern that those strips could be used to widen residential streets, contrary to the policy of traffic calming and slowing traffic. Suggested changes to the right of way transition trigger • Match ROW requirements to the building envelope height. Setting the base level as 60 feet seems appropriate, since staff stated that would be most streets built since the 1970s. It also is the most common maximum building height that requires a transition. For zones that allow additional height, set the ROW transition trigger to match the maximum building height. • Develop a policy that does not allow acceptance of ceded strips of land to avoid ROW transition triggers. Loss of property taxes and potential for increased maintenance costs, all for little public benefit, seems like a bad trade-off. Setting a clear policy would help clarify when transition requirements would be triggered, and would give all residents, businesses, and developers clear guidance on the application of transition requirements. Addressing Mitigation along ZET with Manufacturing/Industrial Zones One of the core principles of zoning is to minimize conflicts between incompatible uses. As the planning department has pointed out, as the UDC was updated, all zone district permitted uses as well as height, mass, and scale maximums that are allowed in code will be approved. For manufacturing/industrial zoning (M-1, M-2, and B-P), separating incompatible needs to be done with the zoning map, rather than through transition requirements. The current zoning map is fairly good at separating these zones from residential and mixed use zones. However, stronger safeguards and more stringent ZET mitigation requirements are needed to mitigate the impacts on residential and mixed use zones. Here are allowed uses in the manufacturing/industrial zones: • M-2 allows heavy manufacturing. "This use category includes, but is not limited to wrecking yards, building material manufacturing, chemical plants, concrete and asphalt plants, and freight facilities."(UDC, 8-22) • M-1 and B-P allows moderate manufacturing which "includes, but is not limited to contractors, call centers, textiles, wood products, printing, pharmaceuticals, machinery manufacturing, research and development, regional distribution, and crematories." (UDC, 8-22) These allowed uses are not compatible with residential or predominantly residential areas. Please consider the following modifications to better mitigate potential impacts to lower intensity districts. • Prohibit abutting zone changes from M-1, M-2, and B-P to residential zones RA and RB. (currently listed as 1b transition requirements) If for some reason, the City has no alternative than to put these zones next to each other, it would be helpful to put it through a variance process so that site specific solutions to the most disruptive allowed use could be crafted to address height and noise, operation hours, noxious fumes and other factors associated with the most disruptive use in the manufacturing zone. If the City would prefer to codify transition requirements, it needs to fully account for loud, noxious, and disruptive activities that are sited above the impacted abutting zone. These likely include sound baffling walls, additional light blocking measures, siting intake and exhaust away from ZET, further setbacks, and additional trees placed between walls and the lower intensity zones. • Prohibit abutting zone changes of M-1, M-2, and B-P to RC, RD, and REMU(res) zones. (currently listed as 2b standards) As in the point above, either address the impacts through a variance process or through much more stringent ZET transition requirements, if any of these zone combinations occur. Apartment dwellers deserve the same protection from incompatible uses as predominantly single family home zones. • Consider additional (more stringent than 2b) transition requirements for M-1, M-2, and B-P to REMU(mx). This zone has a lot of residential use, even in its mixed use subzone. To encourage vibrant mixed use, having more stringent requirements than are currently in the UDC code would be helpful to ensure residents can live there without significant impacts. Thank you for your considerable work and recognition that zone edge transitions are an important mitigation tool. My hope is that these suggestions help further the discussion of how best to accomplish mitigation of zone change impacts throughout Bozeman and in areas where we expect growth in the future. Sincerely, Karen Filipovich Dear Mayor, Deputy Mayor,and Commissioners: I am writing about zone edge transition(ZET) requirements. I am in support of reopening and reconsidering that section of the UDC to better meet the stated purpose; "[t]o help mitigate the impacts of taller buildings on lower intensity zoning districts." (38.060.070) The 2026 transition requirements are an improvement over the 2018 version of transition requirements. I am grateful to see that some of the lessons learned from built examples have been applied. Clarifying and refining the ZET requirements that were adopted in 2026 would further improve mitigation of impacts. "Section 38.800.100-1 definitions"does not have a definition of"intensity."Based on the zone combination for different required transitions cases shown in Table 38.060.070-1 -Required District Transitions, intensity appears to involve three factors: • Difference in heights of building envelopes of the subject and abutting zones • Differences in the maximum allowed number of units or differences of mass/scale between zones • Differences in allowed uses that could be or are incompatible(table of uses:sec 38.300.020) It would be helpful to have further clarification about what intensity means in this context so that transition requirements are more clearly delineated. Suggestions for 1 a and 1 b transition requirement cases: 1 b introduces required landscaping along lot line and alley transitions,with larger setbacks to accommodate mature trees,as compared to 1a requirements. Please maintain the 1 b ground setback and landscaping changes in all zoning combinations that are in the current UDC. In addition, please consider changing the requirements for setbacks and landscaping from 1 a to 1 b in the following zone combinations to improve the consistency of mitigation measures across zone combinations. Suggested Changes from 1 a to 1 b Ground Setback and Landscaping Standards Subject Abutting Reasons for suggested changes Zone Zone(s) RD RA, RB, Height differential is the same as several current 1 b zone combinations, presence of wall plate is the same as several current 1 b zone combinations. Significant density change. B-1 RA Allowed use changes are significant,significant density change. REMU RA, RB Height differential is the same as several current 1 b zone combinations, (res) presence of wall plate is the same as several current 1 b zone combinations. Significant density change. 1 Subject Abutting Reasons for suggested changes Zone Zone(s) REMU RA, RB Height differential is the same as several current 1 b zone combinations, (mx) presence of wall plate is the same as several current 1 b zone combinations,and changes in allowed uses.Significant density change. NEHMU RA, RB Height differential, presence of wall plate,and differences in allowed uses. (mx) Significant density change. RC* RA The height differential is the same as NEHMU(mx),significant density change. M-1, M-2, RA, RB Prohibit zone combinations as adjacent zones. If impossible,strengthen ZET B-P requirements beyond 1 b due to incompatible uses. *RC to RA doesn't have a transition requirement currently listed, but height differential is like NEHMU(mx), with the ability to add six times the maximum combination of units as RA. Additional considerations for 1 a and 1 b transition requirements: • Set stepback at the maximum wall plate for RA and RB:The stepback height for 1 a and 1 b transition requirements are set at the maximum building height of abutting districts. However,the wall plates for RA and RB are significantly lower,and the rest of the height is a peaked roof.This will provide better mitigation of the difference in heights for people who live in the lower intensity neighborhoods and for travel along the streets. • Additional transition requirements for historic and landmark districts.According to the City of Bozeman,"[p]reservation goes beyond saving old buildings, it creates a unique sense of place,a sense of community and bridges the gap between the past and our future." In order to meet that objective,these special areas require ZET mitigation at a higher level than other redevelopment areas,especially since the height of historic districts are not likely to reach the current building envelope because we want these special areas preserved. • Additional transition requirements for zones that allow 90'heights.Three zoning districts currently can be built to the height of 90': B-3, B-2(regional commercial&services),and B-P(regional commercial&services). Further consideration of which combination of measures such as a deeper setback at the ground level,a shorter setback height,deeper stepback,and/or additional Landscaping beyond the already required boulevard requirements is the optimal mitigation solution will require additional modeling. • Encourage or require ground floor residential where the zone change between a business and residential district is across the street. Having residential uses on streets that demarcate business to residential zone changes helps connect the two zones. Suggested changes for 2a to 2b transition requirements 2b standards have required landscaping and a larger setback to accommodate mature trees.There are no stepback requirements in the current standards,since the wall plates are allowed to rise to the flat roof. 2 Please maintain all 2b transition standards and consider moving the following zone combination from 2a to 2b. Suggested Changes from 2a to 2b Setback and Landscaping Standards Subject Abutting Zone(s) Reasons for suggested changes Zone B-2 RD, REMU(res) Differences in allowed uses, relative overall size of permitted buildings. In case of regional commercial&services designation for B-2,significant height difference. B-P RD, REMU(res) Differences in allowed uses, relative size of permitted buildings. In case of regional commercial&services designation for B-P,significant height difference. M-2 B-2M Differences in allowed uses, no large differences in height,density,or allowed uses from other B class zones that have 2b transitions. M-1, M-2, RC, RD, Prohibit combinations as adjacent zones. If impossible,strengthen ZET B-P REMU(res&mx) transition requirements beyond 2b due to incompatible uses. Right of Way(ROW)Transition Requirement Triggers In the current UDC, right of way(ROW)is set at 60 feet.This will trigger transition requirements as listed in that section of the UDC.According to planning staff,this is the approximate distance of a modern residential street, boulevard,sidewalk,and 1 foot buffer. Two major challenges to using 60 foot ROW as a universal trigger that would provide adequate mitigation have been identified: 1. The height variance currently being mitigated with a single ROW trigger is large. Currently it varies from 45 feet(B-1)to 90 feet(B-3, B-2(regional commercial&services), B-P(regional& commercial services)).This is a 100%difference in heights. It is unlikely that a one size fits all ROW provides adequate mitigation across the range of heights in the zones subject to transition requirements. 2. The solution of using 60 feet as a work around for mitigation along the narrowest right of ways in the oldest part of town opens the door to messy and potentially costly responses.Staff have pointed out that a developer could cede a strip of land to the city(typically less than 10 feet, according to my measurements of several streets on the current ZET)and thus avoid transition requirements across a street.Since it would be public land,the City will lose property taxes on these strips. It is likely the city will need to maintain those strips,since they are now public.They aren't Large enough to be parks,so they are unlikely to have significant public benefit.There is also concern 3 that those strips could be used to widen residential streets,contrary to the policy of traffic calming and slowing traffic. Suggested changes to the right of way transition trigger • Match ROW requirements to the building envelope height.Setting the base level as 60 feet seems appropriate,since staff stated that would be most streets built since the 1970s. It also is the most common maximum building height that requires a transition. For zones that allow additional height, set the ROW transition trigger to match the maximum building height. • Develop a policy that does not allow acceptance of ceded strips of land to avoid ROW transition triggers. Loss of property taxes and potential for increased maintenance costs,all for little public benefit,seems like a bad trade-off.Setting a clear policy would help clarify when transition requirements would be triggered,and would give all residents, businesses,and developers clear guidance on the application of transition requirements. Addressing Mitigation along ZET with Manufacturing/Industrial Zones One of the core principles of zoning is to minimize conflicts between incompatible uses.As the planning department has pointed out, as the UDC was updated,all zone district permitted uses as well as height, mass,and scale maximums that are allowed in code will be approved. For manufacturing/industrial zoning (M-1, M-2,and B-P),separating incompatible needs to be done with the zoning map, rather than through transition requirements.The current zoning map is fairly good at separating these zones from residential and mixed use zones. However,stronger safeguards and more stringent ZET mitigation requirements are needed to mitigate the impacts on residential and mixed use zones. Here are allowed uses in the manufacturing/industrial zones: • M-2 allows heavy manufacturing. "This use category includes,but is not limited to wrecking yards, building material manufacturing,chemical plants, concrete and asphalt plants, and freight facilities." (UDC,8-22) • M-1 and B-P allows moderate manufacturing which "includes,but is not limited to contractors,call centers, textiles, wood products,printing,pharmaceuticals,machinery manufacturing,research and development,regional distribution,and crematories."(UDC,8-22) These allowed uses are not compatible with residential or predominantly residential areas. Please consider the following modifications to better mitigate potential impacts to lower intensity districts. • Prohibit abutting zone changes from M-1, M-2,and B-P to residential zones RA and RB. (currently Listed as 1 b transition requirements)If for some reason,the City has no alternative than to put these zones next to each other, it would be helpful to put it through a variance process so that site specific solutions to the most disruptive allowed use could be crafted to address height and noise,operation hours, noxious fumes and other factors associated with the most disruptive use in the manufacturing zone. If the City would prefer to codify transition requirements, it needs to fully account for loud, noxious,and disruptive activities that are sited above the impacted abutting zone.These likely 4 include sound baffling walls, additional light blocking measures, siting intake and exhaust away from ZET,further setbacks,and additional trees placed between walls and the lower intensity zones. • Prohibit abutting zone changes of M-1, M-2,and B-P to RC, RD,and REMU(res)zones. (currently Listed as 2b standards)As in the point above,either address the impacts through a variance process or through much more stringent ZET transition requirements, if any of these zone combinations occur.Apartment dwellers deserve the same protection from incompatible uses as predominantly single family home zones. • Consider additional(more stringent than 2b)transition requirements for M-1, M-2,and B-P to REMU(mx).This zone has a lot of residential use,even in its mixed use subzone.To encourage vibrant mixed use, having more stringent requirements than are currently in the UDC code would be helpful to ensure residents can live there without significant impacts. Thank you for your considerable work and recognition that zone edge transitions are an important mitigation tool. My hope is that these suggestions help further the discussion of how best to accomplish mitigation of zone change impacts throughout Bozeman and in areas where we expect growth in the future. Sincerely, Karen Filipovich 5