Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2026 Public Comment - K. Filipovich - Walk with a Commissioner - ZET and B-3 Height Questionnaire Summary From: Karen Filipovich To: Bozeman Public Comment Subject: [EXTERNAL]Walk with a Commissioner-ZET and B-3 Height Questionnaire Summary Date: Friday,August 21,2026 3:54:35 PM Attachments: WalkwithaCommissionerQuestionnaireSummary.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 Commissioners, I have attached the summary of the 35 responses that were submitted anonymously in conjunction with the "Walk with a Commissioner" zone edge transition tours that were held in July. Respondents were passionate, offered detailed ideas, and had diverse points of view on issues related to zone edge transitions and to the question of height in the B-3 zone. I hope that their efforts are helpful information for the work session on August 25th. Sincerely, Karen Filipovich Walk with a Commissioner Transition Questionnaire Summary Walks were held July 22 and 27 35 total responses The purpose of this questionnaire was to identify what participants thought about transitions and to provide information to help commissioners better understand views on UDC zone edge transition (ZET)sections and the B-3 height question that will be discussed in the August 25, 2026 work session.Commissioners Sweeney, Bode,and Madgic participated in the walks. The"Walk with a Commissioner"was advertised on a City social media channel and was open to all. Based on self-identified comments,the majority of participants lived near or on a ZET in several areas of town. Both lower-intensity neighborhood residents and developers or staff working on high-intensity developments were represented. It appeared that people residing in the apartments and condos built since 2018 with those transition standards had chosen not to participate. Participants tended to have strong views on ZET and other topics related to City planning and engagement. Summary Lin the current code,a 60 foot right-of-way(ROW,includes the street,boulevard strip,plus 1ft.beyond the sidewalks)does not trigger any transition requirements between zone changes.What feels like an appropriate ROW distance that is large enough to eliminate the need for transition requirements? 25 responses Below 60' Additional Information: Other ideas No responses were recorded that proposed the elimination of a ROW as a transition trigger. 60'(current UDC) Below 60':3 responded in the range of 10-15'. One indicated the ROW would be the alley.The other Above 60'up to 90' was 30' All streets 4 60':One respondent was 16.0 concerned that widening the ROW Above 90' would lead to wider streets and faster traffic.Another thought that this ROW,with associated setbacks would be sufficient for mitigation 60'to 90':The sole response was 90' Above 90': ranged from 100'-150' All streets:Comments for always having an across street trigger included feeling walled in,aesthetics, need for integrity for future buildings, need based on Bozeman-sized streets Other ideas: These varied,with nuance to try to address mitigation. • A transition distance resulting in less than a 50 degree transition between the base of the ROW to the top of the higher building is essential to preserve access to sunlight for the residents of smaller buildings. • Variable ROW based on height of the building(or building envelope) in the building envelope,with or without a lower bound ROW distance. (2) • Variable ROW based on the combination of subject and abuting zoning districts,with larger ROW and additional transition requirements to mitigate in lower density areas. • Significant additional factors for mitigation were identified, including light and air circulation, bulk of the underlying building, large differentials in height/mass/scale that might be better solved with rezoning or changing in the intensity in the subject district,and thinking about specific factors that affect the overall impact of the building on the adjoining neighborhood. • Addition of public or civic features like parks, pocket parks,and creeks. • Ceding a strip of land to have a ROW that would not trigger transition requirements had mixed responses. One saw that as another way of meeting a designated ROW.Another saw this as a potential issue that would lead to wider streets.Two others opposed using this mechanism. 2.What solutions seem most useful to you to provide better transitions?Please check all that apply.(feel free to write notes about them in the following question) 35 responses(all respondents) What solutions seem most useful to you to provide better transitions? Reponses(35 (check all that apply) respondents) Mandatory tree and shrub planting in boulevards 26 Preservation of existing trees on boulevards 25 Construction requirements(site work, noise, parking,etc.) 25 Set-backs at ground level from (feet from street,sidewalk, lot line etc.) 24 Restriction on lighted signs, lights, illumination (time,siting,or elimination 24 Building stepback at the podium (1-2 stories up) 23 Requirements on ground floor(windows, lights,entrances,etc.) 23 Privacy measures on the higher density zone side(balcony placement, balcony enclosure(rails,glass,window size,window placement,etc.) 23 Enforcement measures(replanting, addressing noise,etc.) 23 Mandatory tree and shrub planting in setbacks 21 Stepback at another level or levels or feet from ground 21 Blinds or other requirements to meet"dark sky"compliance. 20 Garage door requirements(location,opaqueness, lights, etc.) 19 Window size, placement,type and/or materials 19 Wall/siding materials 17 Other 13 1 The solutions listed in the question were formulated by including existing transition requirements and by asking residents near recently built transition areas to identify factors that were potential challenges.Several options are currently at UDC.Some are tweaks suggested by residents who live near transitions built since the 2018 transition requirements were put into place.Other solutions need to be addressed by other government or private action. Respondents were also offered the ability to offer other or additional responses to solutions. Most emphasized and added detail to their checked responses. 13 respondents to question 2 added in detail with an "other"comment. Of these responses,5 of the"other"comments were variations on options presented.Three had questions about why the questions included solutions that were already in the UDC.The remaining responses or parts of responses had other solutions: • Consult with adjacent landowners • Floor Area Ratio • General operational approval for addressing things like squeaky garage doors • Solid walls for upper balconies • Noise ordinance changes and enforcement • Remove ZET, no mitigation standards 3. Please add any details and further comments about the transitions measures you checked in the question above. 20 responses Transition Requirement Considerations • Ground level setback with landscaping • Preservation of healthy, mature trees • Preserve south-facing aspects for lower height zones with setbacks and stepbacks • Stepback with adjacent building heights • Stepback with wall plate • Garage doors siting away from residential zones • Flexibility to accommodate site specific conditions-for example, mature trees might not fit, but shrubs and perennials might • Ground floor windows and entrances • Limit requirements to public interaction with the street, i.e.street setback • Intensity of building limits in a zone-too big of a jump upward in the current UDC • Privacy requirements(windows, balconies) • Noise • Viewshed • Siding materials-dark and reflective add heat in summer • Lighting requirements that fall on transition zones, dark sky requirements for entire buildings lit signage Other UDC Requirements • Reduce height differential between zones • Change zone map with B-3 does not touch RA • Boulevard requirements • Note:Several of the window, light, and other building requirements could also be dealt with in building standards for all buildings or through mechanisms like the NCOD overlay district. 2 Other Considerations • Construction phase requirements:Operating hours, portable sanitation placement and maintenance, pedestrian access when sidewalks are closed, loading/unloading blickages,and limiting idling, construction parking, proactively addressing property damage, noise • Operational phase:Ability to rectify squeaky garage doords,other noise or maintenance problems • Encouraging diversity of architechture and maintaining an artistic, unpretentious look. • Encouraging neighborly connections • Tradeoffs of different transition mitigation solutions • Property rights • Additional plans,such as those for the urban forest,that have their own requirements • Enforcement of maintenance and other provisions once building is completed Other comments One respondent felt the questions were anti-development. 4. 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.) 28 responses • 20 respondents wanted to see some form of voluntary or mandatory consultation • 6 respondents either thought the current process was sufficient or that MLUPA would prohibit this approach • 2 respondents weren't sure or has another point Factors that might make community consultation useful included: • Starting early or at specific stages(e.g. preapplication, predesign) in the process,so community input was timed to in a way that it could be incorporated. • Putting in a trigger for consultation,such as a certain size,complexity or removal of existing buildings was suggested as a way to determine when consultation would make sense. • Using such a process for two-way learning was identified. Respondents noted that developers could learn more about potential unintended impacts, neighborhood characteristics,and context, and factors that would help yield a more successful project. It was noted that the neighborhood participants needed to have a base level of education about city strategic goals,the UDC code, and the financial circumstances to have a productive conversation. • A range of ideas,from exchanges of ideas to negotiations were offered in how such a consultation might work. • Neighborhood Associations or more diffuse groups of nearby neighbors were identified as potential participants in consultative discussions. Factors that might make community consultation challenging were: • There are already legal notices and appeals processes. • The need for a baseline level of knowledge needed to have a productive consultation. 3 • Legal limitations on whether(or to what extent)a developer needs to listen to or negotiate with communities. • MLUPA may make some or all forms of community consultation illegal. S.What do you think the total allowed height should be in the B-3 zone;(Select one) 34 responses 90'(current) 147% Other Jill 70'(prior height) 26.5% 60'(legal limit) IV Within the "other"category, • Three had recommendations that would not or likely would not meet state law for the minimum height in the B-3 zoning area. • Two were in favor of 60-70"with additional transition requirements. One noted that the Armory and Element on Mendenhall were good examples of sufficient setback or stepback. • One suggested 60' minimum with room to negotiate up to 90'for city and neighborhood priorities. • One suggested a maximum height of 120' • One suggested using Floor Area Ratio instead 6.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.) Seven responded in the negative to adding or subtracting zone combinations to the transition requirements. Responses with specific zone to zone requirements: • NEMHU to RA[Note: Currently a 1a transition in the UDC) • Add a transition for access to solar power by maintaining transitions on south facing zones • Add transition between all zones Within zone transition areas: • Allow lower density building standards in B-3 zone where"skinny" lots exist on a ZET • Add a transition within B-3 from primarily business to primarily residential 4 Zone Map changes: • B-3 should not abut RA • Learn from zoning map challenges when annexing newer parts of town to step up and down gradually • Zoning map is dysfunctional in ways that transitions can't ameliorate Transition Requirements: • Stepbacks and floor area ratios can do a lot • Trigger transition requirements across any ROW or public boundary • Strict transition requirements require active City management and a vision in mind,so causes more problems than it solved • Extra protections for existing housing and neighborhoods • Light and noise problems 7.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.) 24 responses Note:These are anonymous opinions. In some cases,different respondents identified the same building as a good or problematic example. Most of these examples are not on a zone transition line,or were built before the 2018 transition requirements.At the date of these walks, no buildings have been built with the currently adopted transition requirements.These examples are intended to help illustrate what factors are seen as helpful or problematic to help inform any future reconsideration of transition requirements. Better Transition Examples • NW Corner of W. Beall and N. Grand-baffles on upstairs balconies for privacy and plantings. (2) • 3,4 story home/apartment building next to a 1 story building • Allow for sunlight and room for trees • Village Downtown:Tall building,then townhouses(RB), M-1 zoning and open space. Buildings don't loom over small, residential lots. • Park Place (B-2M)on E. Main due north of residential. Doesn't max out the lot space and the building is buffered by a parking lot from adjacent RA. • Wildlands(NEHMU(res): 3 story residential wrap around an existing 2-story and inviting public space,art, and landscaping • First Lutheran Church on the corner of S. Black to E. Curtiss(B-3 to RA) • Birdhouses- N. Black and E. Lamme • Block M • Bozeman Library • The Armory(3)-stepback height makes the overall height much less overpowering • Bank redo on Main • Apartment complex between Peach and Tamarack-peaked roof, parking in center, playground for kids • Ives-straight section at south half of block • Buildings built with anticipation of future redevelopment in the lower intensity area (B-3 to RC specifically cited) • North side of Henry facing Villard (2)-stoops, neighborhood consistent sidewalks and boulevards 5 • Things look about right with new developments • Evergreen apartments on 3rd and Koch blends well with the RA around it. No stepbacks or balconies help keep noise down. Like the architecture. Problematic Transition Examples • Black Olive(2) building next to a single story house across a lot line • 6+story building next to 1 story home • Block sunlight and limit trees • Many HomeBase developments: height,shading, monolithic blocks with few design features, limited sidewalk appeal • Henry • Ives(3)- Alley transition:Straight section,south end of block; angled transition section, north end of block[Note: 2018 code mandated the angled section, no longer in force for buildings permitted after Feb. 1, 2026] • Buildings with no provision for landscaping,setbacks,or stepbacks • Apartment complex to single family homes in Loyal Gardens.Setbacks, landscaping,and wider roads • Bon Ton building-lights, living space, detritus • Balconies overlooking RC from B-3 feel intrusive across the alley.Would have been better to zone the full block at B-3 Other Comments: • There are no examples of the transition code adopted in 2026. It is not appropriate to evaluate. 8.What recommendations,questions,or considerations do you have for the City and Commission around transitions? 25 responses These questions and comments were organized into broad categories and spell checked, but not otherwise edited. Questions for Commissioners • How will transitions be planned in greenfield areas vs. redevelopment areas? • How is the NCOD, UDC, and the ZET within the UDC working together to preserve and invigorate vibrant, existing neighborhoods? • Why are we discussing this?A waste of Commission time and the community's desire to manage growth. • Who can I call?What are the rules?Feels like business can do what they want and residents have no recourse or anyone to call. • How does NCOD interplay? • What is the service capacity for various areas? • Can every lot be built to its zoning potential?Or will some get left behind once all capacity is used up? Comments Transition Requirements • 1 think there should be better transitions such as step backs of 45' between existing low structures and new taller structures even when the smaller structure is located in a zone that allows taller buildings. 6 • Require more intensive shading studies so that 70-90 foot buildings do not"take" sunlight from RA-RC residences. • Do not allow tall bldgs to block sunlight on north side neighbors • Recommendation:Trees and landscaping for them. • 1 think transitions are incredibly important to create softer, more livable transitions. I also think vegetation can go a really long way when placed between zone transitions for screening as well as to boost Bozeman's tree canopy.Setbacks between zones should be of sufficient width for mature trees to grow in. • By all means Implement them!!! Offer developers the chance to increase height a bit to compensate for lost height(revenue)when building up against the street ROW and property line transitions. Narrow greenway corridors,earmarked for vegetative tree/planting strips seems to me to be a must for all zone transitions!! But vegetative/tree planting strips are not enough.Also required are ZETs involving tall building step-backs. Let's improve on mistakes/oversights made this far!! • Future energy use is a real concern. Eliminating vegetation, increasing impervious surfaces,and adding heat islands is an issue. It's larger than ZET, but the transitions need to do the important work of ameliorating some of the environmental degredation associated with much of the high intensity building we've seen since 2018. • As our city continues to grow,and density becomes a more pressing reality,the future of all zones'density should be allowed to increase.Certain zone-edge transitions are thought out for the present, but buildings may last well over a century. • Neighborhood context and scale need to be considered. • It's a new code, allow it to work before making changes. Building Height If there is a lot in a neighborhood and the neighborhood is all single level and two story structure,do not approve a 90' building on this lot regardless of zoning.This lot is zoned incorrectly for the surrounding houses. Other Comments Related to UDC, Plans and Effects of Building • Please don't consider historic homes and neighborhoods"non-conforming uses." Many of us love our homes in their current locations and have no desire(or ability)to move out of the center to recreate our desired living situration. • Not transitions per se, but re: compatible adjacent development that is taller and/or adjacent to existing structures. Requirements for solid walls of upper story decks for aspects adjacent to residential structures (not necessary for adjacent to streets or commercial structures).Also,for window size and location, at the very least could/should be a form to be filled out as part of the application where the applicant has to say where and how the design takes into account"what's next door" (although, it's possible that what's next door isn't expected to exist in that state for long enough to justify the new structure adjusting in this manner). Interestingly,this is just as applicable in small-scale new structures. Even a detached house going in next to an existing detached house in R-A should have to consider what is next door when it's designing its decks and windows,for example. • The city has used affordability as reasoning for many of the development approvals and we clearly have had lots of development throughout the county however affordability has not changed significantly and the worst part is Bozeman's true affordable (or the closest thing we have to it) housing scattered around downtown have become less affordable and less desirable.The decisions we make today have permanent impacts we must make careful decisions • The huge three story condominiums are really ruining the feel of the valley. Bozeman's"Big Sky'feeling and mountain views are being decimated.The people are moving here from the density of cities for wide openness.The long time residents feel their valley being taken away by high density construction. 7 • Privacy, light and air,glare are the most important livable issues. Engagement and Prioritization • Focus on other issues • Please listen to residents more than developers. Residents have a vital spiritual link to their neighborhoods,developers a strictly monetary one.Which Bozeman do we want? • Zoning based on "planning hopium" (or developer pressure or desire to maximize tax base?) has greatly exacerbated conflict with the truth on the ground where downtown crashes against long-time historical single-family(and sometimes designated historic) residences.Also,we seem to be losing more vibrant/valuable local commercial venues with the attendant residential gentrification. • We now can see in the last 10 years after some projects that have been built,where they come up short. It is always hard to know exactly what an outcome will be until after it has been built. It did not sound like that the Ives neighbors felt like they were listened to much in the planning stages of that structure.This is an age-old problem everywhere:the claim made by the neighborhood that, "The developers never listened to us!" If this is so commonplace,why doesn't some city like Bozeman,try a new approach? • Stop favoring developers and their bottom line over the concerns and suggestions of citizens.When a developer stands up in a commission meeting and puts his property value and his fear of losing money over the community interests we can all see a lack of respect for the beautiful area that he has moved into. People here are not anti developers.Citizens want compromise to create a liveable city for all the residents. 8