HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-26 Public Comment - T. Steinway - Work Session_ Zone Edge Transitions From: Tyler Steinway
To: Bozeman Public Comment
Subject: [EXTERNAL]Work Session:Zone Edge Transitions
Date: Tuesday,August 25,2026 11:40:11 AM
Attachments: T.Steinwav-Public Comment Transitions 2026.8.25.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.
Greetings-
I am submitting the attached letter for the Zone Edge Transition Work Session tonight.
Thank you,
Tyler
Tyler Steinway, AICP Associate I Senior Planner
Intrinsik Architecture, Inc.
106 East Babcock Street Suite 1A Bozeman, Montana 59715
0.406.582.8988 Direct:406.426.9568 M.406.220.8210
August 25, 2026
RE: Unified Development Code
Subject: Zone Edge Transitions
Dear Commissioners, my name is Tyler Steinway. I am a Bozeman resident and renter, and I
also work professionally as an urban planner. I am writing to share a few comments on the
zone edge transition portion of the work session, particularly how the standards apply
where the higher-intensity zoning districts meet adjacent lower-intensity districts.
There has been a lot of conversation about making transitions fair across a shared
property line. If a property is required to provide the transition, then it should still be able
to develop up to the same standards allowed in the lower-intensity district before the
transition requirement begins to apply.
To make transitions truly fair,the additional 3'of setback for properties adjacent to R-
A needs to be removed.
ALSO,to make transitions truly fair, the required landscaping transition needs to be
removed.The lower-intensity lot is not required to provide a landscape buffer and
therefore the transitions can never be fair unless that requirement is removed. If the
Commission wants to keep a landscaping buffer in the code, I think it would be more
effective as an incentive rather than a fixed requirement. For example, a project could have
a smaller step back on upper floorF if it provides a greater setbackwith trees or other
meaningful landscaping along the transition area. This could help grow the urban forest,
improve the experience at the edge of neighborhoods, and give more flexibility to the
narrow lots that are unfairly burdened by current transition requirements.
I would also encourage the Commission, if it directs staff to revisit the transition
standards,to include the professional design community in that conversation. A lot goes
into the design of a building, and simply choosing a new step back number can be
shortsighted or arbitrary if it is not tested against how buildings are actually designed.
The design community also has access to various tools that can study light, shadow,
massing, and other site-specific impacts. These tools could help support a more informed
and objective conversation about what the right transition standards should be, rather than
relying on an arbitrary number that may create unintended consequences.
Overall, I support thoughtful transitions between downtown and the surrounding
neighborhoods, but I think those standards should be fair, predictably objective, and
grounded in how buildings are designed.
Thankyou.
Tyler Steinway, AICP