HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-27-26 Public Comment - K. Filipovich - ZET commentFrom:Karen Filipovich
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]ZET comment
Date:Tuesday, October 27, 2026 12:01:56 PM
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:
Thank you for continuing to work through mitigation solutions that address significant
differences in zoning intensity to better meet the stated purpose; “[t]o help mitigate the
impacts of taller buildings on lower intensity zoning districts.” (38.060.070)
In August, I submitted a comment of feedback from residents who participated in the July
“Walk with a Commissioner” events. I also submitted detailed comments on considerations
related to the current zone edge transitions.
I have a few questions and comments here in response to commissioner questions and the
staff memo and materials prepared for the October 27 work session.
1. RC to RA transition: Recommend this is added
Currently, there is no required transition between RC, which includes a flat wall and 50’, and
RA, which has a 22’ wall plate and 40’ maximum roof peak.
In the current UDC, NEHMU (res) and NEHMU (mx) both require a 1a transition between
NEHMU and RA. (NEHMU (mx) also requires a transition with RB). NEHMU has a maximum
height of 50’. For NEHMU (res), it also includes a wall plate of 33’ and overall height of 50’. In
this case, the visual intensity is slightly less than the RC to RA transition and the uses are
mainly residential. It is unclear why the residential use of RC does not have a similar transition
requirement as NEHMU when the stated purpose is to mitigate impacts of taller buildings on
lower intensity districts.
For consistency, please include an RC to RA transition.
2. Landscaping Requirements
Currently, there are four classes of requirements for transitions. Two of those: 1b and 2b,
include landscaping standards to mitigate the impacts of the taller adjacent zone, through the
use of trees and shrubs.
The goal is to mitigate the impacts of taller buildings on lower intensity zoning districts.
Why would removing landscaping standards be appropriate for some combinations of high-
intensity residential, mixed-use, or business classes that adjoin residential zones but not
others?
This is particularly puzzling because the height differential between landscapes and non-
landscaped options is often the same. For instance, REMU to RA does not require landscaping,
but B-2M to RA does require landscaping. In both cases, the maximum height of the higher
intensity district is 60’. Though the emphasis on permitted uses is different between the two
zones, both allow both commercial uses and residential uses.
I recognize that there are some differences in noise and amount of people between different
zones, but all residential zones need as much privacy, sound, and heat buffers as possible.
Since staff did not make a recommendation on materials and windows, this is particularly
important
Please consider changing all 1a transition requirements to 1b. For 2a, change the M-1 to RC,
RD, and REMU transition to include landscaping.
3. Addressing lots in high intensity zones so that they can build to the lower intensity
standard.
It does appear that there will be some small lots in high intensity areas that might adjoin lower
zones. Allowing them to build to a lower intensity zone has some merit, but questions remain.
If the transition is large, such as from a B-3 to an RA zone, would building a single lot to RA
standards in the B-3 zone introduce a problem that is otherwise mitigated in the standards?
Would doing something more like Great Falls has done with its mixed use zone heights
(stepping up the allowed height based on distance away from a lower zone edge) provide a
cleaner solution to mitigate transitions than putting what amounts to a variance in the main
zone edge transition code?
4. Materials and Windows
Where are these issues going to be dealt with? The NCOD?
Thank you for your consideration and hard work to determine the best solutions to mitigate
difficult zone edge transitions.
Sincerely,
Karen