HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 4163, Adoption of the Bozeman Community Plan
Report compiled on April 7, 2009
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Commission Resolution 4163
MEETING DATE: Monday, April 13, 2009
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Commission Resolution 4163 adopting the Bozeman
Community Plan.
BACKGROUND: The City of Bozeman has had an adopted growth policy since 1958. The
City Commission directed the Planning Board to prepare an update to the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan which was adopted by Resolution 3486 in 2001. The update was required both
by the passage of time and the changes caused by very high rates of growth.
The Planning Board has conducted public outreach, reviewed the existing document, prepared a
draft document, and conducted public hearings on the draft. At their February 18, 2009, meeting
the Planning Board voted 5-0 to recommend an amended draft to the City Commission for
adoption. The City Commission passed a resolution of intent to adopt a growth policy and
conduct a public hearing before taking action on the draft document on March 9th.
An adopted Planning Board resolution and minutes, submitted public comments, and staff report
are provided with this memo. The draft growth policy was provided to the City Commission
earlier. The staff report contains an analysis of the four outstanding issues relating to the future
land use map.
The staff report contains a review against the relevant criteria. The Planning Board has
recommended approval of this action.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: There are four items relating to the future land use map. These are
identified and described on pages 7-10 of the staff report.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No immediate or direct fiscal effects are expected.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have
questions prior to the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Planning Board resolution and minutes
Commission Resolution 4163
89
Report compiled on April 7, 2009
Commission Memorandum
Staff Report
Public comment
90
STAFF REPORT
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN GROWTH POLICY ADOPTION NO. #P-07006
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 1
Item: Bozeman Community Plan (BCP), Application #P-07006, to adopt a new growth policy to wholly replace the existing Bozeman 2020 Community
Plan.
Applicant: City of Bozeman PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Representative: Department of Planning and Community Development City of Bozeman
PO Box 1230 Bozeman MT 59715
Date/Time: Before the Bozeman City Commission on Monday, April 13, 2009 at 6:00
p.m. in the City Commission room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana.
Report By: Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Recommendation: Approval
__________________________________________________________________________________
PLAN LOCATION AND MAP
The subject property is the entire planning area of the City of Bozeman. The planning area includes the City of Bozeman as well as an area adjacent to the City. The location of the planning area is shown on
Figure 3-1 of the growth policy. The planning area has been coordinated with the planning area for the City’s water, wastewater, and parks facility plans.
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City conducts long range planning to:
1. Protect the public health and safety and advance the well being of the community at large, while
respecting and protecting the interests of individuals within the community.
2. Provide a supportive framework for private action which balances the rights and responsibilities
of many persons.
3. Facilitate the democratic development of the public policies and regulations that guide the
community.
4. Improve the physical environment of the community as a setting for human activities, more
functional, beautiful, healthful, and efficient.
5. Coordinate technical knowledge, political will, and long-range thinking in community
development in both short and long term decisions.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 2
6. Identifies the citizen's goals and priorities for their community and how they wish to carry out
those ideals.
7. Encourage efficiency and effectiveness by government through coordinated policies and
programs.
8. Serves as a reference bench mark for community priorities, physical attributes such as size, and
social and economic information such as housing and jobs. A growth policy is an abstract of a
community.
9. Support economic development by providing basic information about the community to
prospective citizens and employers. A well done, and implemented, plan shows that a community
is actively trying to improve their area.
By state law the formal term for a community’s comprehensive plan is ‘growth policy’. The development
of a growth policy is a primary responsibility of the Planning Board and is directed by Sections 76-1-601
through 76-1-606, MCA. Bozeman has had a formal comprehensive plan since 1958. Careful planning by
individuals and small groups prior to that time created the historic areas of the community. Since 1958,
Bozeman has had five comprehensive plans.
The growth policy sets broad policy standards and coordinates between many municipal functions. It is
the overriding policy document for the community. A community has broad latitude in the level of detail
they wish to address in their growth policy. Certain subjects are required to be addressed. The City
Commission adopted Resolution 4112 in July 2008. Resolution 4112 commits the City to undertaking
certain coordinated infrastructure planning with Gallatin County. This is not a jointly adopted growth
policy but coordination within individual growth policies. This coordination manifests in many ways.
Most recently the City and County cooperated in the preparation of a transportation plan which includes
the Bozeman planning area.
As the first step in preparing the new growth policy, the City contracted with Clarion Associates, a
national planning firm, to review the existing growth policy. Clarion conducted focus groups with
citizens, met with staff, reviewed the printed documents and produced a report. The report identified
areas where planning was functioning well and areas where improvements could be made. The Planning
Board and Staff frequently consulted the Clarion report during the preparation of the new growth policy.
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan was focused on six broad themes. These were Neighborhoods,
Sense of Place, Natural Amenities, Centers, Integration of Action, and Urban Density. The new Bozeman
Community Plan has retained those six themes and added the theme of Sustainability These themes are
described in Chapter 3.
Since the adoption of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, Bozeman has grown tremendously. The
growth occurred at a rate much higher than anyone expected. The plan held up well under the strain but
needed to be updated. The City Commission directed the Planning Board and Staff to prepare an update
in 2007.
The Planning Board conducted many public meetings and outreach events to garner input from the
community. A draft document was made available in the end of 2008. Public hearings were held by the
Planning Board on January 21st and February 3rd, 2009. After consideration of the public comments and
review of the document the Planning Board recommended a draft to the City Commission on February
18, 2009. Please see the attached minutes, resolution, and public comment.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 3
1. Expanded planning area. The City had physically reached the outer boundaries of the 2020 Plan
planning area through annexation in some portions of the community. The planning area
boundary was expanded to allow examination of community edges and transition to County areas
as well as to coordinate with other facility plans.
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
The Bozeman Community Plan carries forward most of the principles and aspirations of the Bozeman
2020 Community Plan. The following items are significant changes between the documents. To see all
changes review the documents.
2. Coordinated population projections. Bozeman exceeded a five percent average growth rate for a
five year period prior to the development of the new growth policy. The new growth policy and
facility plans used this high growth rate to consider what changes in land use may occur. If growth
is less than this rate then an adjustment can be made at the next regularly scheduled plan update
in 2014. The high growth rate also provides some cushion for development location. The City
does not compel land owners to develop and forecasting which parcel will develop first is not
possible. By considering a higher demand rate some flexibility is provided which minimizes
amendments and unintended changes.
3. Adding Sustainability as a theme. Since the original development of the 2020 Plan the concept of
sustainability has risen significantly in national and local discussion and consciousness. Many
aspects of sustainability were included in the 2020 Plan. In the Bozeman Community Plan the
issue is elevated and made more prominent as a coordinating theme.
4. Increased emphasis on mixed use. Some of the land use categories have been renamed and an
additional category, Residential Emphasis Mixed Use, has been created. These changes have
placed an increased emphasis on mixed uses. National and local interest has increased in the
opportunity for the additional design and development flexibility that mixed use provides.
5. Economic Development. The City has contracted with Prospera Business Network for the
preparation of a first ever stand- alone economic development plan. This plan is currently
underway. Upon completion it will be integrated into the growth policy in the same manner as
other facility plans.
6. Document formatting. The Bozeman Community Plan uses a different document format and
structure to be friendlier to the user. Chapter structure, page layout, and inclusion of web links in
an on-line version of the document are all suggestions made in the Clarion report. Chapters are
considerably shorter and are primarily focused on the goals and objectives. Background
information is contained in the appendices or the independent facility plans.
7. Several new chapters have been created. A recommendation of the Clarion report, some chapters
elevate existing subsections to a higher level of importance. These include the Arts and Culture,
Historic Preservation, Regional Coordination and Cooperation, and Review and Amendments
chapters. The Disaster and Emergency Prevention and Response chapter is a new chapter which
did not previously exist.
Section 76-1-601 MCA specify the required contents of a growth policy. The same section also allows for
a number of voluntary items. The section specifically states that the degree to which any required element
of a growth policy is addressed is at the discretion of the governing body. There are some required steps
for the process to adopt or revise a growth policy. For this growth policy, the Planning Board has
conducted the required public hearing after proper notice, has forwarded a recommendation of adoption
REVIEW CRITERIA
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 4
by resolution, the City Commission has adopted a resolution of intent, and the City Commission’s
hearing for April 13th has been given proper notice.
There are no specific statutorily required review criteria for a growth policy. However, 76-1-102 MCA
establishes the purposes for planning. Lacking other defined statutory criteria, these purposes are the
standard against which adoption of a growth policy is measured. These items overlap in various ways and
working on one will often advance another. The description below is a summary. The complete intent
and compliance with criteria may be obtained by reviewing the full document.
1. Improve the present health, safety, convenience, and welfare of their citizens.
The BCP meets this criterion by coordinating between multiple facility plans. The facility plans
address transportation, fire protection, parks and recreation, water, and wastewater. All of these
facilities protect health and safety. Safe and functional transportation supports timely emergency
responses. Water systems support suppression of fire as was recently demonstrated in the
Downtown. Parks and trails encourage a physically active and healthy community. Other elements
of the plan such as arts, historic preservation, and economic development support the general
welfare by encouraging a vigorous community with resources to meet the social and economic
needs of citizens. By establishing common community goals and aspirations land use regulations
can be drafted and policies enacted to advance those goals. The BCP addresses the local purposes
of planning identified in the Proposal section which also advances the statutory purposes of
planning.
Health, safety, convenience, and welfare are issues woven throughout the document. Avoidance
of hazardous situations such as flooding and protection of watercourses is an example of an issue
which spans multiple chapters. Chapter 13 specifically addresses disaster issues. Chapter 3
addresses these issues as they relate to land use. Other chapters address a variety of subjects.
2. Plan for the future development of their communities to the end that highway systems be
carefully planned;
The City, County, MDT, and others participate in coordinated transportation planning. A new
transportation plan, consistent with the BCP, has been prepared and has been preliminarily
adopted. The final draft is now being prepared. The BCP establishes goals and policies which will
ensure that a fully functional, multi-modal transportation system is developed. This includes
correction of existing deficiencies as well as expansion. The transportation plan and BCP allow
coordination across jurisdictional boundaries so that as annexation occurs and roads or other
transportation means are developed the transportation system will function efficiently. Chapter 11
addresses transportation.
3. That new community centers grow only with adequate highway, utility, health, educational, and
recreational facilities;
The BCP continues established policies for concurrency of infrastructure necessary to meet the
needs of development. The various facility plans incorporated with the BCP describe service
levels and facilities required to meet those levels. Some of these items are provided by an entity
other than the City of Bozeman. Those items are addressed also with demonstration of
compliance being provided during the land development review process. This intention is brought
into existence through the land development standards adopted by the City and other regulatory
agencies.
4. That the needs of agriculture, industry, and business be recognized in future growth;
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 5
The BCP sets aside a land base for all of these activities. The land use pattern, provision of timely
and adequate infrastructure, and overall community health supported in the plan support a
healthy economy. Policies encourage the development of local production and businesses in a
wide range of areas, including agriculture. Figure 3-1 includes a land base adequate to meet the
expected needs of the community for economic activity for the next 20 years. The BCP
coordinates policies and facilities in order to provide necessary services at a constrained cost.
Action items in Chapter 16, Implementation, direct further actions to advance this purpose. The
City has contracted for an Economic Development plan which will further examine this area.
When the plan has been completed it will augment and as needed update the BCP.
5. That residential areas provide healthy surroundings for family life;
Residential areas which provide healthy surroundings are protected in the plan by policies
requiring adequate mitigation of development impacts, provision of public and private utilities,
provision of parks and trails, protection of the natural environment, and a broad view of
community health. Sequestering or isolating residences from services is not considered supportive
of healthy surroundings as it can increase health hazards, such as asthma from poor air quality
caused by excessive vehicle use. The BCP calls for adequate development review and community
maintenance to address and mitigate hazards. A diverse range of housing is encouraged and
supported to meet the wide range of housing needs in the community.
6. The growth of the community be commensurate with and promotive of the efficient and
economical use of public funds.
The BCP describes a compact future growth pattern which maximizes the value from previous
public expenditures and reduces future expenditures. Distance is one of the largest impacts on
cost of delivery of services. A compact and land efficient development pattern provides benefits
to many users from each installed unit of capacity. This applies both to capital and operational
costs. The transportation plan and BCP seek to maximize the efficiency of transportation
investments by encouraging a multi-modal approach which spreads demand over longer periods
and provides travel alternatives which are less costly. Maintaining the high existing quality of life
also supports this criterion by encouraging community reinvestment and renewal which maintains
a pleasant environment and constrains demand for public services.
The present growth policy, the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, contains locally developed criteria for
amending the plan. Although the BCP will wholly replace the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan rather
than amend it, a review of those criteria is also provided. These criteria are from Section 2.4.1 of the
Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
A. The proposed amendment cures a deficiency in the growth policy or results in an improved growth policy which better responds to the needs of the general community.
The new plan creates an improved growth policy by incorporating updated information and
responding to the years of rapid change that have occurred since the original adoption of the Bozeman
2020 Community Plan. The new plan is responsive to changes in state law governing growth policies.
Additional information has been added and physical revisions to formatting have been included to make
the document more usable to the reader. Sustainability as a substantial named theme has been included
which helps address current and expected future changes in the physical environment.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 6
B. The proposed amendment does not create inconsistencies within the growth policy, either between the goals and the maps or between different goals; if inconsistencies are
identified, then additional changes must be provided to remove the inconsistencies.
No inconsistencies have been created within the document.
C. The proposed amendment must be consistent with the overall intent of the growth policy.
There are six basic themes which form a foundation for the policies of the 2020 Plan and
encapsulate the intent of the growth policy. These themes have been continued and strengthened
and have not been negatively impacted by the new growth policy. The addition of sustainability as
a theme has strengthened the overall intent of the growth policy. The revised formatting has
made the content more accessible to the user which can increase understanding of the intent of
the growth policy.
D. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the community as a whole or significant portion by:
1. Significantly altering acceptable existing and future land use patterns, as defined in the text and maps of this plan.
The overall planned land use pattern and principles have been continued in the new
growth policy. Some changes to the future land use map do not match current zoning on
undeveloped properties. The City has the authority to consider changes to both future
land use and zoning on a property. These are City programs and remain in City control.
2. Requiring unmitigated larger and more expensive improvements to streets, water,
sewer or other public facilities or services and which, therefore, may impact development of other lands.
The growth policy coordinates between the various facility plans for maintenance and
expansion of the City’s services. The land use pattern and facility coordination provides
for cost containment in providing services. Some additional facilities will be required to
give service to an expanded population. The related expenses should be mitigated by the
City’s policies both existing and proposed. Some of the new facilities are required by
external mandates from regulatory agencies and would be necessary regardless of growth.
AND
3. Adversely impacting existing uses because of unmitigated greater than anticipated impacts on facilities and services.
The growth policy requires evaluation of development impacts and provision of
mitigation to off-set those impacts. The City’s active facility planning and development
review program should avoid this problem.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 7
4. Negatively affecting the livability of the area or the health and safety of the residents.
The new growth policy puts primary emphasis on an expansive approach to public health
and safety. The first priority is problem avoidance then mitigation of impacts. This is
consistent with commonly accepted planning practice for emergency services. Provision
of adequate water for fire suppression, safe travel because of adequate street requirements,
and emergency services coordination with other jurisdictions are examples of ways the
growth policy encourages the protection of public health and safety.
The growth policy does anticipate substantial expansion of the community. This may
affect how some people perceive the ‘livability’ of Bozeman. Trying to stop all growth
would also be seen to negatively affect the livability of Bozeman for some. Change is
inevitable and must be addressed. The growth policy encourages provision of elements of
community design and development which support livability such as parks and open
spaces, a viable and vigorous economy, preservation of the historic built environment,
access to education and the arts, and encouragement for a socially active community.
STAFF FINDINGS/CONCLUSION
Planning staff has reviewed this application for a growth policy amendment against the criteria set forth
in Section 76-1-102 MCA, and Section 2.4.1 (Criteria for Review and Amendment) of the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan. Staff found that this proposal satisfies all of the required review criteria. The Bozeman
Planning Board has also reviewed the plan and has recommended approval of the document to the City
Commission. Based on the evaluation of said criteria and findings by the Planning staff and Planning
Board APPROVAL of the growth policy is recommended.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments were received throughout the public process of developing the plan draft. The Planning
Board considered the comments received in writing and verbally at the public hearings. Based upon the
public comment and their subsequent review and discussion of the document the Planning Board made a
number of changes. Not all changes suggested in public comments were made as the Planning Board
concluded that another action should be taken instead. The public comments are attached with this staff
report. Some additional public comment has been received since the Planning Board hearing and is also
included for City Commission review.
There are four revisions to the future land use map which the Planning Board concluded should not be
made or should only be made in part. There are no outstanding non-map items. These are:
1) Designating the eastern bench and foothills as permanent open space or very low density development.
Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Future Urban. Some of this area was not included within the
planning area for the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
2) Designating a parcel west of Cottonwood Road along Huffine Lane in the Norton development as
community commercial. The Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Residential Emphasis Mixed Use. A
designation of Business Park was adopted by amendment to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
3) Designating a parcel SW of the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and S. 3rd Avenue as Residential.
Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Future Urban as does the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 8
4) Designating a parcel NW of the East Main I-90 Interchange by the Village Downtown development as
Community Commercial Mixed Use. The Figure 3-1 presently shows the area as Parks, Open Space, and
Recreational Lands. The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan has the same designation for the majority of
the area. A portion is shown as Community Commercial.
Analysis of remaining items
1. Keep the text and map as is while recognizing the concerns identified in the public comment.
This would still allow the option to work with the County on any TDR or other proposal for
.
1) The Future Urban land use category is described beginning on page 3-14 of the draft document. The
category is shown on Figure 3-1 on parcels of land both within and without the City boundary. The
opening sentence of the description notes that the category ‘…designates areas where development is
considered to be generally inappropriate over the 20 year term of the Bozeman Community Plan…’. The
reasons may be lack of infrastructure or because development may conflict with the desired land use
pattern.
The plan does not dispute the assertion that the visual characteristics of the foothills are a part of
Bozeman’s character and serve important functions for wildlife. Those reasons are part of why those
areas are not shown for development in the next 20 years. If Gallatin County chose to enact a transfer of
development rights program the foothills could be designated as a ‘sending’ area to transfer potential
density to more suitable locations. The County does have open space bond funds which they could use to
help acquire development rights from those areas. Bozeman does not have a similar program but does
pay taxes into the County’s program.
Extension of urban services would be costly and require very lengthy extensions for some services
although water is more readily available than sewer services. Extension at very low densities would be
cost prohibitive for the foreseeable future. The facility plans do identify and depict the pipe location and
sizing necessary to serve these areas but does not advocate for particular extensions of service which
conflict with other City policies.
The City does not have regulatory jurisdiction over the majority of the Future Urban area. It is noted in
the closing paragraph that annexation of Future Urban areas is presently unexpected over the life of the
plan. At best we can suggest and encourage a course of action for the County to pursue in its land
planning. Option 1 gives the City’s preference that the property not be developed. If a development
proposal is made it would require an amendment to the growth policy first. Amendments for Future
Urban are suggested to only occur during the overall update of the plan, see chapter 17. If development
occurs in the county then no further subdivision is encouraged. County protection of the foothills area
would be consistent with the policies of the BCP.
The title of the category Future Urban was developed at the time of the preparation of the Bozeman 2020
Community Plan in 2001. The title shifted several times until the present term was selected by the City
Commission. The Planning Board and City Commission were sensitive at that time to the opposition of
land owners of having their land appear to be set aside as a permanent conservation belt. If the title of the
category is believed to give an inaccurate sense of the policy then another title could be selected.
Establishment of open space belts around other communities have contributed to problems with
jobs/housing balance, housing affordability, and sustainability. Strategic pursuit of open space in
cooperation with other public and private parties to protect community values can still occur.
Commission Options.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 9
conservation.
2. Revise the text describing the Future Urban category, including the possibility of selecting a new
name.
3. Create a new land use designation for areas of no or extremely low future development and apply
to the map, Figure 3-1, in areas deemed appropriate.
4. Delete the Future Urban category entirely and designate all of the planning area for development
as deemed appropriate.
2) The Norton annexation process included a growth policy amendment and zone map amendment to
establish primarily urban residential uses with approximately 20 acres of business park category and
zoning immediately adjacent to Huffine Lane. During the process of developing the Bozeman
Community Plan a new land use category of Residential Emphasis Mixed Use was developed. At this
point the implementing zoning is higher density residential districts, see Appendix C, page C-17. It is
anticipated that an additional zoning district would be created which would include a greater range of
non-residential uses.
During the review process many different possible maps were developed and considered. During that
process the area presently designated as Business Park was changed to Residential Emphasis Mixed Use
(REMU). The owner’s representative requested at the public hearing before the Planning Board that the
Business Park designation be changed to Community Commercial Mixed Use. The City Commission had
considered an initial request of Community Commercial Mixed Use with the original annexation and had
instead applied the Business Park designation.
Planning Board considered the request and concluded that the REMU designation was a superior
designation for that site in the context of the overall plan. There is no approved subdivision or other site
development for that portion of land, nor is one pending. There was wholly residential subdivision
approved for a portion of the Norton annexation further to the north on the property.
Commission Options.
1. Keep the future land use map as recommended by the Planning Board.
2. Revise the future land use map to show Business Park Mixed Use in that location.
3. Revise the future land use map to show Community Commercial Mixed Use in that location.
3) There are two parcels to the Southwest of the intersection of Goldenstein Lane and S. 3rd Avenue. The
owners requested that those parcels be designated as Residential. The parcels are currently shown as
Future Urban on Figure 3-1 and in the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan. The area north of Goldenstein
Lane is shown as Residential. There are no areas shown as Residential south of Goldenstein Lane until
west of S. 19th Avenue. The area to the east of S. 3rd
4) The East Main I-90 interchange is located at the base of the Story Hills. There is an eroded gap where
the East Gallatin River and the rail road pass through to the northwest. Main Street begins at the off-
ramp and climbs up the hill towards Lindley Park. There is a sharp rise between the elevation of the gap
and the upland.
Ave. is shown as Suburban Residential.
Commission Options.
1. Keep the future land use map, Figure 3-1, as recommended by the Planning Board.
2. Revise the future land use map, Figure 3-1, to show Residential category designation on those
parcels.
#P-07006 BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN Staff Report 10
Northwest of the interchange is an area which includes steep slopes, wetlands, rail yard and has had a
variety of development over the years. Portions have been recently redeveloped. Since the 1990 Master
Plan, portions of that area have been planned for residential, open space, commercial, and industrial uses.
The Bozeman 2020 Community Plan reaffirmed a mix of uses in the area including open space. The
zoning maps have consistently shown a mix of zoning, not all of which has strictly conformed to
underlying master plan designations. Plans evolve and reflect changing understanding of scientific and
regulatory issues such as water quality and wetlands, community priorities, and needs for public safety.
Such changes also affect the future land use map. A map is not fixed in place forever nor is zoning
prohibited from ever changing.
Portions of the area zoned M-1 span several different existing underlying planning designations and have
for many years. The B-2 and M-1 zoning also overlay many physical features and non-city regulatory
issues. The City’s zoning standards are explicit that mere mapping of a zoning district does not waive or
negate the need to meet all of the applicable standards in order to gain approval for development, see
Section 18.14.010.C, BMC. Examples of physical limitations to development of the property under
discussion include very steep slopes, presence of regulated wetlands and other surface water, and lack of
physical access. The items listed also are examples of regulatory limitations to development. No
application has been made to develop the site.
Using the analogy of a puzzle, all of the pieces must be in place to complete the picture. A mapped
zoning district is only one part of a puzzle. Should it be demonstrated that the impediments could be
removed then an amendment could be processed to the growth policy. The issue of perceived conflict
between the zoning and planning could be resolved by the City amending its zoning map. Designation of
the land as Parks, Open Space, and Recreational Lands, see page 3-13 of the growth policy, does not
grant any public right of access or use, it remains in private ownership.
Planning Staff has considered the issue of a claimed takings raised by the property owner in their
comments. We do not believe that a supposed taking would result from the adoption of the map as
recommended by the Planning Board. Since this is a legal issue we suggest that the Commission consult
with their legal staff on the matter for a technical analysis of the claim.
Commission Options.
1. Retain the map, Figure 3-1, as recommended by the Planning Board.
2. Retain the map, Figure 3-1, as recommended by the Planning Board and direct a change to the
zoning map.
3. Modify Figure 3-1 to correspond to the zoned but undeveloped condition of the property at
question.
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Board resolution P-07006
Planning Board minutes of public hearings and recommendation on January 21, February 3, and February
18, 2009
Submitted public comment received after the draft document was made available to the public for the
Planning Board public hearing The draft document was provided to the Commission and public several weeks ago and is not an attachment to this report
cc: file
1
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4163
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN ADOPTING THE
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, A GROWTH POLICY, AS ALLOWED BY TITLE
76, CHAPTER 1, PART 6, MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED (M.C.A.)
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-1-106(1), M.C.A. states that the Planning Board is responsible
for preparing growth policies, if requested by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, The Bozeman City Commission directed the Bozeman Planning Board and
the staff of the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Development to
prepare an update to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan originally adopted on October 22, 2001
by Resolution 3486; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update
as requested; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman retained Clarion Associates to conduct an outside
review of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, Clarion Associates prepared a report for the City which was received in
September 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board undertook a variety of public outreach events and
practices to encourage public input and participation in the drafting of the update; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update
to the adopted growth policy and all related documents and materials were properly submitted
and reviewed, and all public hearings and public meetings were advertised in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Section 76-1-602, M.C.A.; and
91
2
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission adopted Resolution 4112 on July 21, 2008
stating their intent to develop a growth policy which would contain in addition to the mandatory
elements, those elements of 76-1-601(4)(c), MCA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held public hearings on Wednesday
January 21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009, to receive and review all written and oral
testimony on the request for said update of the growth policy; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented a summary description of the updated growth policy and
answered questions for the Planning Board after which the public was invited to give testimony;
and
WHEREAS, numerous written comments were provided to the Planning Board before
and during the public hearing, and verbal comments were received during the public hearings,
with said comments being summarized or included in the minutes and other record of the public
hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board considered all oral and written
comments they had received during the public comment period at their public hearings on
Wednesday January 21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the issues raised in the public comment as
well as items of concern to the Planning Board and the requirements of law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board identified and directed changes to be made to the text
and maps to better reflect the purpose and intent of the Board and in response to questions or
comment provided by the public; and
92
3
WHEREAS, a motion was made to recommend approval of the growth policy with
changes as directed by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, City of Bozeman Planning Board, on February 18, 2009, on a vote of 5 to
0, recommended adoption by the Bozeman City Commission of the Public Comment Draft of the
Bozeman Community Plan as amended by the Planning Board
WHEREAS, a revised draft incorporating the directed changes was prepared and made
available for public review prior to the public hearing to be conducted by the City Commission
prior to any action to adopt a revised growth policy; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised as required by statute to be held on April
13, 2009 before the City Commission to consider the Planning Board recommendation and
accept public testimony regarding the updated growth policy; and
WHEREAS, all public testimony received by the City after the advertisement for the
Planning Board public hearing, minutes of the Planning Board’s public hearing and
deliberations, and the draft document were provided to the City Commission in advance of their
public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that:
Section 1
That pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 1, Part 6, MCA it adopts the Bozeman Community
Plan and that the document shall be as follows:
See Exhibit A.
93
4
Section 2
Directive.
That City staff and advisory boards are directed to work on implementing this plan as
time and resources allow.
Section 3
Directive.
That staff is directed to prepare a presentation draft of the adopted plan to facilitate the use
of the Bozeman Community Plan by the public.
Section 4
Severability.
If any provision of this growth policy or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this growth
policy which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the
provisions of this growth policy are declared to be severable.
Section 5
Savings Provision.
This growth policy does not affect the rights of duties that matured, penalties and
assessments that were incurred or proceedings that began before the effective date of this resolution.
Section 6
Effective Date.
This growth policy shall be in full force and effect upon passage
DATED this 13TH day of April, 2009.
94
5
KAAREN JACOBSEN
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
STACY ULMEN, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
Bozeman City Attorney
95
Bozeman Community Plan #P-07006 1
RESOLUTION #P-07006
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, AS
ALLOWED BY 76-1-601 MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED (M.C.A.)
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-1-106(1), M.C.A. states that the Planning Board is responsible for
preparing growth policies, if requested by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, The Bozeman City Commission directed the Bozeman Planning Board and the
staff of the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Development to prepare an
update to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan originally adopted on October 22, 2001 by
Resolution 3486; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman retained Clarion Associates to conduct an outside review
of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, Clarion Associates prepared a report for the City which was received in
September 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update as
requested; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board undertook a variety of public outreach events and practices
to encourage public input and participation in the drafting of the update; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update to
the adopted growth policy and all related documents and materials were properly submitted and
reviewed, and all public hearings and public meetings were advertised in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 76-1-602, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission adopted Resolution 4112 on July 21, 2008
stating their intent to develop a growth policy which would contain in addition to the mandatory
elements, those elements of 76-1-601(4)(c), MCA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held public hearings on Wednesday
January 21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009, to receive and review all written and oral testimony
on the request for said update of the growth policy; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented a summary description of the updated growth policy and
answered questions for the Planning Board after which the public was invited to give testimony; and
WHEREAS, numerous written comments were provided to the Planning Board before and
during the public hearing, and verbal comments were received during the public hearings, with said
96
Bozeman Community Plan #P-07006 2
comments being summarized or included in the minutes and other record of the public hearings;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board considered all oral and written comments
they had received during the public comment period at their public hearings on Wednesday January
21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the issues raised in the public comment as well as
items of concern to the Planning Board and the requirements of law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board identified and directed changes to be made to the text and
maps to better reflect the purpose and intent of the Board and in response to questions or comment
provided by the public; and
WHEREAS, a motion was made to recommend approval of the growth policy with changes
as directed by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, a revised draft incorporating the directed changes will be prepared and made
available for public review prior to the public hearing to be conducted by the City Commission prior
to any action to adopt a revised growth policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Bozeman Planning Board, on a
vote of 5 to 0, recommends adoption by the Bozeman City Commission of the Public Comment
Draft of the Bozeman Community Plan as amended by the Planning Board.
DATED THIS 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009, Resolution #P-07006
_____________________________ ____________________________
Chris Saunders, Assistant Director Brian Caldwell, President
Dept. of Planning & Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board
97
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:12 p.m. in
the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis Andrew Epple, Director of Planning
Chris Mehl Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Quinn
Erik Henyon
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Dawn Smith Dan Triemstra
Donna Swarthout Dennis Carlson
Mark Evans
Jennifer Hart
Al Lien
Guy Alsentzer
David Cook
Sam McCalley
Rebecca Musy
Rob Pertzborn
Chris Murphy
Steve Ziegler
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
David Cook, 701 S. 7th Ave., stated he had previously made the comment that he was amazed
and perplexed that resounding comments for the City were being made in the Growth Policy and
very few from the public had attended the meeting. He suggested that the City should consider
why no one had been involved in the City discussions and why there was a total lack of interest
in Bozeman. He noted the municipal form of government relied on response from the citizens
and the City was not getting those comments. He stated the City should address why there was
no citizen interest.
Dan Triemstra, 2200 Durston Rd., stated he was a farmer, agriculturist, and a member of the
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 1
98
Farmers Canal Company. He stated transition use of water did not necessarily remove the need
for ditches and noted a ditch could not always just stop at the end of a property. He asked for the
definition of “formal abandonment” as it appeared in the text of the Growth Policy. He noted a
water use might not be agriculture use in the future and may instead be used for mitigation. He
explained the City took over maintenance and liability of a ditch when it was incorporated into
the City. He noted agricultural facilities did not exist for the convenience of storm water
facilities; he suggested written permission be obtained by the developer of properties from every
one of the water users along the waterway. He suggested the City use the same method as the
County when mitigating watercourses.
Vice Chairperson Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify the definition of “formal
abandonment”. Assistant Director Saunders responded the literal dictionary definition would
apply and there would be a review process to determine whether the abandonment of the
watercourse was formal. He noted the use of storm water for mitigation, etc., would be a
different set of easements for a storm water facility than for a conveyance facility.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public
comment portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of January 6, 2009
as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. DRAFT GROWTH POLICY
Assistant Director Chris Saunders presented the Staff Memo noting the project had been a work
in progress for the Planning Board. He gave an overview of the reasons for the Planning process
and stated maximizing one thing sometimes acted to the detriment of another and Planning
helped to determine a balance between the two. He stated that fundamentally, the document
would touch on principal issues and guiding themes were used throughout the document. He
noted the influences on Planning; such as natural features, costs, and returns. He noted how the
process began and clarified the procedures used to provide outreach and workshops for the
public. He noted input had been gathered from a variety of sources and incorporated as the
document was created. He noted there were a number of major changes including; an expanded
planning area, updated data, sustainability, disaster and emergency language, and the
incorporation of references to other documents. He noted there was a large change in formatting
to provide for more accessibility for the public and interconnections to outside, related
documents. He noted the location of the Planning area with regard to the City limits boundary
and that the plan area had been coordinated with four other documents. He noted the number of
chapters included in the document and generally what they covered. He noted most of the
language and text in the current document had been moved to the appendices.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the Transportation Plan was adopted by the City Commission
at their January 20, 2009 hearing. He noted the chapter layout in the Draft Growth Policy had a
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 2
99
common structure with emphasis points being contained on the outside edges of the pages. He
noted illustrated photographs and links to referenced documents would be included. He stated
the theme grid had been included to provide cross references to other locations within the
document and that the layout of the Goals and Objectives within the chapters contained a list of
Implementation Policies located in Chapter 16; he clarified that one Implementation Policy may
apply to a number of Goals within the document. He noted the Guiding Themes were contained
throughout the document and tied into each other in a variety of ways which would encourage
and support sustainability. He noted the Implementation Tools were for both long term and short
term basis. He noted one critical point wo uld be that implementing the document was not
something the City could do on its own and would have to be in concert with other agencies and
the public to benefit everyone. He noted this evening was the first public hearing of the Planning
Board and there would be another on February 3, 2009; he added that the City Commission date
had not been scheduled yet to provide time for Planning Board and public comments. He noted
two written comments had been received and that they had been provided to the Planning Board
in their packets. He noted the Economic Development Plan was in process and surveys had been
conducted, as well as input from the advisory group; he noted a draft was expected by the Spring
of 2009 and the more detailed information would take the place of the information in the current
document. He noted the Downtown Neighborhood Plan would begin in February and the hope
was that it would be completed by the end of 2009.
Mr. Mehl thanked Assistant Director Saunders and noted that e-mail’s through the City website
would also be sufficient to provide for public comments.
Vice President Henyon called for public comment.
Steve Ziegler, 2531 Whitetail Rd., stated he would like to comment on the future urban area; he
asked how the area was established, how it related to the County transfer of development rights,
and how the priorities within the document had been established.
Al Lien, 8507 Huffine Lane, stated Ms. Pomnichowski had notified him – Farmers Canal
Company - and had conversed with Judge Loble of Water Court with regard to the water chapter.
He noted the Middle Creek ditch had been absorbed into the City and others were close so the
Planning Board already had those issues before them to work on. He presented the Board with
written comment from Judge Loble.
Rob Pertzborn, 111 N. Tracy Ave., asked Assistant Director Saunders if he could speak to
modifications to the Unified Development Ordinance that would be necessary due to the Growth
Policy adoption. He asked for the Planning Board to describe why the color had been changed
from blue to pink and back to blue again on the property near Cottonwood Road and Huffine
Lane that he had inquired about at the December meeting of the Planning Board.
Robert Evans, Tarlow, Stonecipher, & Steele, stated he represented Norton Properties; he handed
out a letter with a basic request that the Future Land Use Map designation for the property be
reconsidered as Commercial Mixed Use instead of Business Park (just as Mr. Pertzborn had
suggested for a similarly located property at the December meeting); he suggested the
surrounding property was zoned and designated the same, but the proposal would be for a
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 3
100
Community Commercial designation.
Mr. Caldwell responded to Mr. Ziegler that the urban area had been established by the
estimations of the future build out of the community and those areas could be developed, but
would face thresholds with major infrastructure requirements that would make them less readily
developable than areas within the City. He noted the relationship between the City Growth
Policy and the Gallatin County did not exist as the County had not formally adopted the
document; he noted it was the intent of the Growth Policy to work more closely with the County
on the larger planning issues. Assistant Director Saunders added that there was an effort in 2001
by the City and County to create an agreement, but it had never been formally adopted, though
the spirit of the agreement had been maintained and County involvement was a work in progress.
He stated the Plan as presented did not conflict with the conceptual work the County had done
to date; it encouraged infill and development within its boundaries. He noted the City was
required to review and update the document every five years and if things stayed stable, the level
of review currently being used might not be necessary in five years.
Vice President Henyon responded to Mr. Lien that discrepancies in the document had been
found and Ms. Pomnichowski had intended to discuss the language with Judge Loble, who had
provided the comments Mr. Lien had presented. Assistant Director Saunders noted they wanted
to be certain the City had a conforming document and the Judge’s comments would be reviewed
by Staff with the City Attorney.
Vice President Henyon responded to Mr. Pertzborn stating the Planning Board had agreed and
moved to make the change to the Growth Policy Map that had been proposed by Mr. Pertzborn
at the December meeting. Assistant Director Saunders explained the approval process for the
Growth Policy, how amendments to the document could be made after it was adopted by the City
Commission, and how the adoption of the document would create the necessity to amend the
UDO; he noted the creation of a new zoning district or modification of an existing district would
have to occur and that public comment would be encouraged at that time. He clarified that
originally the map had shown the property Mr. Pertzborn was referencing as Residential and was
currently Business Park.
Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to respond to Mr. Evans’ concerns.
Assistant Director Saunders responded the amendment request had been received by the Board
and they would need to consider whether the property would be best depicted as yellow or
purple; the map would be amended as needed. Mr. Caldwell noted that existing zoning
designations were in full effect regardless of the Future Land Use designation of the property.
Assistant Director Saunders clarified that the Growth Policy would be the governing document
and the City Commission could direct Staff to make modifications to the map. Vice President
Henyon asked if the properties in question were raw land. Assistant Director Saunders
responded the Norton property had a Plat for one section, but had vacant land for a portion of the
site and noted the Loyal Garden property was Final Platted with residential construction already
commencing. Vice President Henyon suggested the Board review the public comment with
regard to changes in proposed Land Use Designation and discuss their options at the next
meeting. Mr. Mehl suggested Staff prepare the public comments in a list for consideration at the
next meeting. Assistant Director Saunders agreed. Ms. Costakis stated she thought the parcel
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 4
101
Mr. Pertzborn was referencing had been discussed and decided as Community Commercial at the
December meeting. Assistant Director Saunders responded he would check the December
minutes.
Mr. Caldwell noted that comments had been made regarding a future zoning designation that was
unknown as of yet and he thought the Planning Board should discuss those concerns at a later
date.
The Planning Board began review of individual chapters.
Chapter 12
Mr. Becker asked if the title could be corrected on page 12-2 and suggested the dates, acres of
park, miles of trails, etc. be included. Assistant Director Saunders noted the most recent 2008
data would be included. Mr. Becker stated PS-1 on page 12-3 should include “in a reliable”.
The Board concurred. Mr. Becker noted the Implementation Policies included Affordable
Housing and asked for clarification on how that tied in. Assistant Director Saunders explained.
Mr. Becker stated Objective PS-3.3 did not make sense. Assistant Direcotr Saunders explained
that the situation was that annexing a large portion of property provided a mechanism for
funding the new development, but there were a few spots around town that contained small areas
that did not have redevelopment or further development potential. There are still concerns such
as not meeting sanitation standards, etc., and the Objective indicated the need to explore the
methods by which those annexation opportunities could be investigated. Mr. Becker suggested
“undevelopable, wholly developed parcels where annexation is an excessive burden, the City
will pursue other alternatives.” Mr. Caldwell asked if the issue was a failed waste water
treatment site where replacement would not be allowable and the property would be forced into
annexation. Assistant Director Saunders agreed with Mr. Caldwell and responded it would be in
the City’s best interest to annex those properties. The Board concurred that the language should
be amended to be clearer.
Ms. Costakis asked if on page 12-4 the language should be more specific. Assistant Director
Saunders responded more specific language had been included in Implementation Policies. Ms.
Costakis asked if Public Health should be included in Public Services and Facilities. Assistant
Director Saunders responded that language had been included in the appendices, but had not
been included so specifically within chapters 3 and 9; he suggested stronger language could be
included if the Board concurred that it was necessary and noted the City-County Health
Department had jurisdiction over health concerns. The Board concurred the language had
already been included.
Ms. Costakis suggested adding the language “safe crosswalks” to page 12-5.
Mr. Mehl listed the chapters for the members of the public attending the meeting.
Vice President Henyon stated on page 12-2, the green box contained two references to the
Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded one was in direct reference to
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 5
102
Transit. Vice President Henyon suggested a goal be included stating “to provide for water
conservation education”. Assistant Director Saunders responded efficient use of the municipal
water supply had been addressed. Vice President Henyon responded his suggestion would be
more specific and could be included as an objective. Assistant Director Saunders responded
Implementation 63 addressed an outreach in education on water conservation and re-use; he
noted the language could be added in either of two places. Mr. Mehl suggested it was included
in E and mentioned in both chapters. The Board concurred.
Chapter 13
Mr. Becker stated there were photographs included in the margin that referenced a number of
different safety plans affecting the Growth Policy area and asked if it would be possible to
assemble a list of them to overlay the Growth Policy area. Assistant Director Saunders
responded the web version would take people directly to the referenced document. Mr. Becker
suggested a list of those documents should be included in the chapter. Assistant Director
Saunders noted in Appendix J, there was list of other plans that have occurred or are currently in
place and the list could be augmented to include the other items if the location were acceptable
to the Planning Board; he noted the list would also be updated. Mr. Mehl suggested including all
the documents referenced. The Board concurred.
Rebecca Musy, 514 S. 13th Ave., asked if there was anything in the Growth Policy discussing an
avian flu epidemic. Vice President Henyon responded the hospital had a rapid response plan in
case of avian flu. Ms. Musy suggested quarantine plans should be in place. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the City coordinated with the City-County Health Department who had
jurisdiction regarding those types of emergency situations. Mr. Mehl stated the policy was set at
a much higher level and the City would cooperate with any and all entities if that situation arose.
Chapter 14
Assistant Director Saunders noted a letter of public comment had been received with regard to
this chapter and suggested the Planning Board discuss those comments.
Mr. Becker stated he thought the chapter was fairly complete and suggested maps would be
helpful to determine the relationship of the overlays. Assistant Director Saunders responded the
information would be better contained within the appendix due to the level of detail involved; he
noted there were many inter-local agreements in affect that did not lend themselves well for
inclusion in a map. Mr. Mehl asked if the maps could be linked to the references within the
document. Assistant Director Saunders responded the linked list could be inserted on page 14-3
and the photos could be removed to make space available if needed.
Ms. Costakis stated she did not understand the language on page 14-3, RCC-2.1. Assistant
Director Saunders responded the County would enforce water/sewer services annexing into the
City by requiring the property be annexed to the City or the City would have to provide a letter
stating services to the location could not be provided. Ms. Costakis asked if RCC-2.3 on the
same page included Complete Streets. Assistant Director Saunders responded they were
included. Ms. Costakis suggested RCC-3.5 should include safe routes to school language. Mr.
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 6
103
Caldwell responded the language was referenced in the adopted Transportation Plan. Vice
President Henyon noted the safe routes to school were implied and he was unsure specific
language would need to be included.
Ms. Costakis suggested parks and recreation should be included on the last page of chapter 14
due to the locations that overlapped from the County to the City. The Board concurred.
Vice President Henyon noted the public comment the Planning Board had received on watershed
management for the surrounding forestland and recreation areas. He noted the chapter discussed
the federal government and had specifically listed jurisdictional agencies. Assistant Director
Saunders responded RCC-2.8 addressed the watershed issue.
Chapter 15
Mr. Becker asked if a definition of “formal abandonment” would be included. Assistant Director
Saunders responded he thought the definition would be that of the English language standard
meaning, but could be included; he noted the Subdivision and Platting Act was a section of
statute that would address formal abandonment and there would always be a point where a water
right would be terminated. Mr. Becker stated on page 10-6 and 10-7 the headings were wrong
and suggested the Planning Board and other advisory boards be included under subdivision
review. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included as such so it
would not be in conflict with the Growth Policy and would be left flexible to provide for one of
the three options listed. He noted for all meaningful intents and purposes, every action item on
the agenda was treated as a public hearing item at City Commission. Mr. Becker suggested a
box be included that subdivision applications may have to be channeled through relevant
advisory boards. Assistant Director Saunders responded it could be included in the blank spot on
the last page. Mr. Caldwell noted that the BOA did not exist when the 2020 Plan was created
and, if that language had been included specifically, reviews by the BOA might not be an
allowable option for the City Commission to utilize – he suggested leaving the language non-
specific so as to not limit the review processes. Assistant Director Saunders responded the
language could be included without specifically listing the entities. The Board concurred that
the language should be included, but non-specific.
Ms. Costakis stated on page 15-3, the first and second comments should include CSA’s.
Assistant Director Saunders responded it was included under either the commercial or co-op
language included for the Residential Suburban zoning designation. Ms. Costakis asked if the
Clarion report recommendation to enhance the public health situation could be included on page
15-5 to provide for promoting active living. Assistant Director Saunders responded he could
insert the language after item #1.
Mr. Mehl asked where figure 3 was on page 15-3 and suggested the Land Use Map the figure
referenced should be included in parentheses.
Mr. Caldwell asked if there were any additional authorities or missing links that Staff felt were
needed and asked if remainder tracts should be addressed within the document. Assistant
Director Saunders responded the Supreme Court recently ruled that there was no such thing as a
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 7
104
remainder tract so it would not need to be addressed; he noted Staff felt the draft document
contained the necessary text. He stated he was having difficulty finding a Lewis & Clark quote
that would be appropriate.
Vice President Henyon stated that on page 15-5 he was confused regarding #2 and suggested
“they” seemed to be referring to the habitat instead of the animals. Assistant Director Saunders
responded it was a reference to the animals and the language would be clarified.
Vice President Henyon suggested skipping Chapter 16 until the rest of the Board was in
attendance at the February 3, 2009 meeting. The Board concurred to open and continue Chapter
16 to the next meeting of the Planning Board.
Chapter 17
Mr. Mehl asked who Heraclitus was and suggested checking the spelling of Heraclitus.
Assistant Director Saunders responded he was a Greek philosopher and he would confirm the
spelling.
Mr. Caldwell suggested the Clarion report was clear on the amendment process and he thought
the amendments proposed during the update process received only a “head nod” from the Board;
he suggested the amendments be bundled and reviewed on a regular basis. Assistant Director
Saunders responded Staff had suggested the GPA’s be bundled and reviewed at the same time,
but it would be up to the City Commission to decide the review process. Mr. Caldwell suggested
it would rub people the wrong way to be told to bring their amendments back when the annual
review was scheduled. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Mr. Caldwell and added
that when a project had merit, it would benefit the community to individually review and
expedite the review process. Mr. Quinn added that he thought, when an amendment was
necessary for a project, it should be dealt with as a particular recommendation from Staff as a
formal individual presentation for approval. Mr. Mehl stated the language should be explicit that
all other changes besides Future Urban & Suburban Residential did not have the same review
process; he suggested a short sentence be included addressing all other applications be presented
through the formal review process.
Mr. Becker suggested the break down between the substantial majority and simple majority for
adoption of the Growth Policy should be clarified to prevent future legal difficulties. Assistant
Director Saunders responded the language could be modified to be more consistent; #4 could be
stricken and the decision would fall back to the majority of the total membership of the
Commission. Mr. Quinn responded he thought it would be adequate to use the 2/3 majority rule
for the proposed amendments to remain consistent. Mr. Becker suggested the ¾ majority rule be
instituted. Mr. Mehl concurred with Mr. Becker that the first number should be increased to
allow for the ¾ majority rule. Assistant Director Saunders responded the higher number at the
beginning would necessitate a discussion with the City Attorney regarding State statutes. Vice
President Henyon stated he liked the way it was written right now.
Mr. Quinn stated there was a potential conflict of interest if the City Commission initiated an
amendment and then reviewed the same amendment for approval. Assistant Director Saunders
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 8
105
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of January 21, 2009. 9
responded there was a specific statute that directed the Planning Board to prepare a Growth
Policy for City Commission review and there would be no conflict.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Caldwell noted he would like to speak to the Planning Board some time in the future about
the Urban Land Institute’s conducting of the plan for the downtown district of Bozeman. He
noted it was a departure from the way the Growth Policy was created; he noted they were
impressed with the project team.
Ms. Costakis noted she and Chris were going to the Smart Growth conference.
Vice President Henyon suggested Mr. Evans and Mr. Pertzborn’s proposed map amendments be
discussed at the February 3, 2009 meeting of the Planning Board. Mr. Becker suggested the
Board determine a process (such as a fee waiver) to provide as an alternative at the next meeting.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the
meeting at 10:03 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Eric Henyon, Vice President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
106
MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Vice President Henyon called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:05 p.m. in
the Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Chris Mehl
Bill Quinn
Erik Henyon
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Donna Swarthout
Dawn Smith
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Chris Nixon
Tom Stonecipher
Kathie Callahan
Lucy Pope
Bob Swinth
Pat Martin
Natalie Meyer
Sam McColly
Steve Ziegler
Brett Ferre
Hjalmar Bombeck
Jessica Wilkerson
Landy Figueroa
Erica Paradise
Wren Kilian Bade
Mike Kvasnick
Charles Petrie
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, Vice President Henyon closed the public comment
portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2009
1
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
107
Ms. Costakis stated on page 3 it wasn’t clear if it was the Downtown Neighborhood Plan to
which Assistant Director Saunders was referencing and suggested the language “Downtown” be
included.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to approve the minutes of January 21,
2009 with corrections. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon,
Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith,
and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT GROWTH POLICY
1. Outstanding comments
Assistant Director Saunders noted a memo had been provided to the Board that was a summary of
items not yet discussed or ones that remained unresolved. He noted the most recently received
public comments had been provided to the Board. Vice President Henyon stated the Board would
review the outstanding comments one at a time.
Chapter 4
Assistant Director Saunders noted the reference to people powered vehicles instead of just motor
vehicles had been included, the statement had been changed to an action item in C-3.4 and the
possibility of a definition of “form based zoning” had been provided.
Mr. Quinn added that on Objective C-2.1 a minor change would have sufficed and the proposed
was too wordy; he suggested the language “human powered” should be removed. Mr. Caldwell
responded the intent was to include bicycle use in the document when people thought about
subdivision design. Mr. Sypinski responded he agreed with Mr. Caldwell that the intent was to
include bicyclists and expand the definition. Ms. Swarthout stated she was fine with all of the
revisions as provided in the document. Vice President Henyon stated he saw no problems with
the language in chapter 4 as proposed by Staff.
Mr. Quinn stated a definition of “form based zoning” should be included in the glossary. Vice
President Henyon concurred with Mr. Quinn. Mr. Mehl suggested the definition of “zoning” be
included in the glossary. Mr. Caldwell noted zoning had been around for quite a while and
property had been bought and sold with that understanding, unlike form based zoning which was
newer, and he disagreed that there should be more definitions included. Mr. Sypinski stated
zoning was partially defined in the beginning of the document. Mr. Mehl concurred that it would
not be necessary to include the definition of zoning. Mr. Sypinski asked for the definitions of
“designated” or “dedicated” parks to be included in the glossary. Assistant Director Saunders
responded he did not think the definition would need to be included as it had been addressed in
the PROST Plan; a document more fitted for that purpose. The Board concurred that the
definition of “form based zoning” should be included, but agreed that neither “zoning”, nor
“dedicated” & “designated” definitions would be necessary.
Chapter 8
2
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
108
Assistant Director Saunders noted the current chapter 8 would be replaced in the Spring when
Prospera had completed the final Bozeman Economic Development Plan; he noted Prospera had
agreed to make the 2007 Economic Profile document available to the public at the Planning
Office, but were not amenable to making the document available online. He stated the
educational factor addressed in the previous Planning Board meeting had not been resolved with
Prospera and Staff recommended approval of the chapter as presented, though clarity of whether
education had been included in the study would be pursued.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the Planning Board had previously discussed relocation of
some of the paragraphs of the chapter for clarification. Ms. Swarthout stated she thought the
Board had agreed not to change the order of the paragraphs. Mr. Quinn stated he thought the idea
behind the plan was to promote and facilitate the language in the document. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the Growth Policy was similar to a facility plan in that there was a broad
scope it would cover, as with most facility plans. Mr. Quinn suggested the City might be seen as
right more often if they didn’t pronounce the negative in the language of the document. Vice
President Henyon noted he agreed with Mr. Quinn and his notes reflected that the two final
paragraphs should be removed and the focuses should be on the positive with the negative spin
being removed. He noted he was disappointed that the Draft Prospera document was not hot-
linked to the City website; he thought it should be available on line. Mr. Mehl responded the
profile was developed before the City contracted Propspera’s services and the Economic Plan was
what they were contracted for; he noted linking might be proprietary though he agreed that it was
disappointing. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Final document would be available through
the City website. The Board concurred the economic language should be removed (last two
paragraphs).
Chapter 9
Assistant Director Saunders noted language had been included to address the timing of traffic
lights in conjunction with air quality and read a quote that could be added into the end of the
chapter that would fit well; Henry David Thoreau, “What is the point of a house if you haven’t
got a decent world to put it on.” He also noted Ms. Costakis had shown him a possible quote if
the Board wished to review it.
Mr. Mehl suggested the air quality language be included in chapter 11 instead of both chapters as
it seemed more appropriate. Vice President Henyon responded he liked the location in chapter 9
as he had noticeably seen the air quality in Bozeman go down year after year and the theme
should be included as a way to cut down air pollution. Mr. Mehl suggested those comments
could be combined and located in chapter 9 instead of chapter 11. Ms. Smith asked if timed
signalization was included in the Transportation Plan. Assistant Director Saunders responded it
was addressed in the Transportation Plan Update. Mr. Caldwell added that it was addressed from
more of an Engineering perspective, but was well addressed within the Transportation Plan. Mr.
Quinn suggested the pollution was caused by emissions from sitting for long periods of time with
regard to delays. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included in either
chapter. The Board concurred the language could be combined and located in Chapter 9.
Chapter 14
3
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
109
Assistant Director Saunders responded the wording regarding annexation had been modified per
the Board’s request. The Board concurred the language as presented by Staff should be included.
Assistant Director Saunders stated that rather than jamming the many inter-local agreements into
the chapter as he was unable to fit them all into the available space, inter-local agreements
included in a new appendix M.
Chapter 15
Assistant Director Saunders noted statutory subdivision language had been provided to the Board
with regard to water rights and asked the Board to consider whether or not the definition of
formal abandonment should be included in the glossary. Mr. Caldwell stated he did not think the
definition should be included as the repercussions were what mattered. Mr. Mehl asked Mr.
Caldwell why he would include many other definitions, but not what members of the public were
seeking to define. Mr. Caldwell responded the legalities of the definition should be distinct at a
higher level. Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders if the City Attorney had
discussed Judge Lobel’s recommendation for water right language. Assistant Director Saunders
responded Staff and the City Attorney had not yet concluded discussion of the matter. Mr.
Sypinski stated, as a controlling document, certain perspectives should be defined and he thought
the definition should be included. Ms. Smith responded the language included “in accordance
with Montana law” and stated she agreed with Mr. Caldwell that the language should not be
added to the glossary. Mr. Quinn suggested the opinion of the City Attorney would be necessary
so as not to define the term more or differently than State law. Vice President Henyon stated he
agreed with Mr. Quinn, Mr. Caldwell, and Ms. Smith due to the recent water right issues and
added that he thought the reference to Montana Code would be sufficient. Mr. Becker stated the
first four lines of the definition were fine and suggested the rest of the wording should be
removed. Mr. Caldwell responded the public comments were not ignored; water right language
had been included. He asked how the discussion had originally come about. Assistant Director
Saunders explained the last discussion and that the definition would be a way to clarify for
members of the public. Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Becker thought the definition should be
included; the majority of the Board concurred that the definition of “formal abandonment” should
not be included.
Chapter 17
Mr. Caldwell apologized to the Board regarding his previous discussions about Growth policy
designations. He stated the rational was valid for the intent of Future Urban versus projects
within existing annexation boundaries who were requesting a change in Land Use Designation; he
suggested the language as proposed by Staff would be important. He noted the ¾ majority would
also be important to provide for changing City Commission members over time. Mr. Sypinski
asked Mr. Caldwell for clarification on whether or not he would like to see GPA’s bundled and
reviewed at once. Mr. Caldwell responded the bundled requests would be processed by the
Planning Department unless it was for the Future Urban Land Use Designation which would be
reviewed individually. Mr. Sypinski stated he agreed with Mr. Caldwell with regard to the
language and the ¾ majority vote. Assistant Director Saunders responded the bundling had been
4
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
110
suggested in the previous document but no implementing direction had been given by the City
Commission. There should be clarity that Future Urban to and Urban change would be decided
through the formal public review process. He stated there was no difference between 2/3 and ¾
with the current five member City Commission but the number of Commissioners could change.
The Board concurred the GPA’s should be bundled and the ¾ majority should apply.
Land Use Map
Assistant Director Saunders noted there were two areas shown in the present 2020 map as
Neighborhood Commercial at Stevens Street/19th Avenue/Oak Street and Staff had suggested a
Community Commercial Mixed-Use designation in place of the Business Park Mixed Use shown
on the current draft of Figure 3-1. He noted there was a drafting error that should have depicted
the Residential boundary following Sourdough Road at Kagy Blvd. and Sourdough Rd.. He
noted there was sliver showing parks and open space with a heavily wetland area north of Main
Street that was found not to contain wetlands; he noted Staff suggested giving it an Industrial
designation. Mr. Caldwell stated he agreed that the Growth Policy should reflect the Bozeman
Creek Neighborhood Plan and suggested the plan should be included. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the Bozeman Creek Neighborhood Plan was more specific than the language
within the Growth Policy. It is important to prevent any conflict between the two documents; he
stated he saw no conflicts within the language of either plan as presented. The Board concurred
the changes should be made.
Vice President Henyon opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Chris Nixon, 719 N. Wallace Ave., suggested the triangle last discussed (wetland area north of
Main Street) should not be modified and though today it may not be wet, there had historically
been a stream in that location. He noted the hard-scapes that would be included in the hospital
development would cause water to travel to the lower elevations. He stated he thought another
color should be added to the map to address Historic Mixed Use as it appeared as Industrial; he
suggested different shadings of the same color for each type of zoning on the map. He suggested
wetlands were important and a great deal of them had been lost in the state. He stated overall he
thought the proposed document was a great improvement to the existing one.
Lucille Pope, Alliance for Building Communities, stated in chapter 16 the Implementation
Policies #35, #37, and #39 needed to be addressed; she suggested in year one affordable housing
should be dealt with. She thanked the Board for including a new objective for affordable housing,
but thought there were no implementation strategies specifically for the new objective.
Ted Lang, GVLT, 25 N. Willson Ave., stated they liked the proposed Growth Policy and it
reflected GVLT’s goals. He suggested one of the most challenging goals would be to support and
integrate agricultural uses within the valley; he suggested an amendment to include 91e for the
Future Urban area and the coordination of the County in an open public process to identify
agricultural lands within the Growth Policy Area. He provided the Board with a copy of the
language he would like included.
Steve Ziegler, 2531 White Tail Rd., commended the Planning Board on the Future Urban
5
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
111
definition and the promotion of in-fill development. He stated he had provided public comment
regarding natural amenities and the surrounding mountains being overdeveloped. He stated
outdoor amenities and view sheds were very important and those things should be preserved; he
noted other cities did not have those opportunities. He noted people would rather live in
Bozeman than Tucson because those amenities had been preserved here. He stated a lot of the
Future Urban boundary had been expanded and now covered his property. He encouraged the
Board to detour development outside of the City and to modify the map as it did not reflect the
“sense of place” language of the document. He suggested the area nearest the Bridger Mountains
be preserved and the growth pushed away from that direction. He suggested Bozeman develop
more like Boulder Colorado so the land would have only low impact development (not urban
sprawl, he clarified) and be worth more money. He stated he would like the Future Urban
boundary to be reduced to exclude the area in question, but would like to see a Rural Suburban
residential area. He suggested a Conservation Open Space buffer around the City.
Pat Martin, 2771 Deer Creek Dr., stated he concurred with Mr. Ziegler’s comments. He stated he
encouraged the Board to review the public comment and consider that if the City wants to pursue
development in a view shed area on a slope there should be a different zoning designation to
address those locations. He stated the lowest density opportunity the city had was too high a
density for areas within view sheds. He stated the County had development right proposals that
were categorized with sending and receiving areas in the County Plan and the City should be
active in working with the County on the subject of making the view shed a sending area rather
than a receiving area. He stated he appreciated the Board’s time and efforts in the creation of the
document.
Charles Petrie, 635 Deer Creek Dr., stated he agreed with Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Martin’s comments
as there were areas of the City that it was not appropriate to have high density development.
Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to address public comments received at
the evening’s meeting. Assistant Director Saunders noted that in response to Mr. Nixon’s
statements the City had a standard for all storm water to be dealt with on-site. He noted at this
point the City and the Federal Government had wetland regulations in place to protect them
despite the color and location on the Growth Policy Map. He stated there was potential for open
space uses in the northeast part of town. He noted he had spoken with the Corp of Engineers,
who was keeping an eye on wetland activities, and permits would be required for any alterations
to the wetlands in those areas. He noted there was a blend of residential and nonresidential
activities in that area; he noted the Growth Policy was not a Zoning Ordinance and sites would be
reviewed independently based on the zoning designation for review at a finer degree of detail. He
stated Staff would not want to create separate categories for each zoning district. Mr. Mehl asked
if the City had been in discussions with regard to acquiring lands for open space. Assistant
Director Saunders responded it had been discussed, but the acquisition had never come into
fruition; though it could be obtained in the future. Mr. Caldwell stated there was a mixed signal
sent to the residents in the area when residential use was not reflected in the Future Land Use
designation, though he understood how the zoning designation worked; he suggested including
Mixed Use Residential for the dual citizenship of that area. Ms. Smith asked if the HMU district
was addressed in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Assistant Director Saunders
responded NEHMU was a separate zoning designation that was located within the Conservation
6
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
112
Overlay District. Ms. Smith noted HMU was important enough to have its own zoning and the
zoning designation would be sufficient. Vice President Henyon stated he agreed with Ms. Smith
that the zoning designation addressed the specific uses in the area; he stated he would like to see
the underlying land use stay blue. Mr. Sypinski stated he thought the Board should be careful
how specific the Land Use Map was with reference to zoning designations. Mr. Caldwell stated
the request was to keep the Growth Policy Map in concert with the zoning designations. Ms.
Smith noted that the table C-16 for the NEHMU contained all of the necessary information as
proposed. The Board concurred the map should be approved as proposed.
Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to respond to Ms. Pope’s concerns.
Assistant Director Saunders responded the City had a limited ability to identify specifics to
encourage employment and education though it was generally included in the document; he added
he would know more when the Economic Plan was completed by Prospera. Ms. Swarthout stated
that Ms. Pope’s concerns with regard to implementation policies for affordable housing were
valid; she suggested the Board should remove the education language or the City should make the
commitment and include the language in chapter 16. Vice President Henyon stated one of the key
things for Bozeman would be to create a work force at different levels so people can afford to live
here; he noted he was hoping Prospera was coming up with plans for trade facilities, votech
training, etc. and noted the goal should remain but implementation policies should be included.
Assistant Director Saunders listed the implementation policies pertinent to the goal that could be
added. He noted some of the decisions were made by the Board of Regents and the City had
limited ability to make those proposals available. Ms. Swarthout suggested a beefed up
implementation policy to match Objective 3.4. Assistant Director Saunders suggested adding it
as an action item under Implementation Policy 49. Mr. Caldwell stated the effectiveness of
including it in the Growth Policy might be enough to lobby the Board of Regents to provide a
votech school in Bozeman. Mr. Mehl stated the Propsera Plan would come through the Planning
Board for review and those polled had concerns with affordable housing and education. The
Board concurred an item F should be included, the implementation policies would be beefed up,
and implementation policy #49 would be included. Ms. Swarthout suggested the language
“Support efforts to expand the range of online evening, weekend, and other educational offerings
for residents who seek to increase their earning potential.
The Board concurred that Mr. Lang and Gallatin Valley Land Trust’s suggested language would
be included.
Vice President Henyon asked Assistant Director Saunders to address Mr. Ziegler, Mr. Norton,
and Mr. Petrie’s comments. Assistant Director Saunders directed the Board and public’s attention
to the jurisdictional map for the City of Bozeman and Gallatin County. He noted the Growth
Policy boundary was a coordinated boundary between the City and County to help evaluate the
future needs of the City. He stated the areas filled in green on Figure 3-1 were light green for
conservation easements and dark green for public owned state lands; he noted the Board had
sanctioned and continued the policy that the City wanted to prevent Urban Sprawl and remain
compact. He noted the future housing projections were depicted in tan and yellow colors and
there was a significant portion of the planning area that would not be needed for urban housing;
he added that Gallatin County had jurisdiction over that area until such a time as it was annexed
into the City. He noted the City’s expectation was that no facilities would be included near Churn
7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
113
Creek due to the difficulty in extending those services; he added the City was not in a position to
purchase the land for a conservation easement or extend lines to those areas at this time and did
not foresee that need in the next 20 years, but would be happy to coordinate with the County to
preserve view sheds. He reiterated that the City would not encourage development in locations
where it was not feasible to extend services; he suggested the inclusion of the language that
would allow for reassessment of those locations within the County but within the Growth Policy
area. Mr. Caldwell added that the City could not afford to buy a conservation easement around
Bozeman, but a difficult review process could be required to ensure those locations are preserved.
He suggested a disservice would be done if the view sheds were not included in the Growth
Policy to provide for review processes in the future. He agreed that the amendment process and
the definition of future urban should be linked. Mr. Quinn agreed that the definition should be
strengthened as Staff proposed.
Pat Martin, stated he appreciated the discussion, but wanted to know if the best the City could do
in 2009 was for Urban density or not. He asked the Board to address the Bridger Bench and its
preservation. He stated the alternative was the Autumn Ridge decision to limit density to the
amount of water that can support the development; he suggested removing the Bridger Bench
from the Growth Policy area.
Steve Ziegler, stated the boundary could increase in any direction, but a different color could be
included to address the intent the City has for the land.
Ms. Smith asked Assistant Director Saunders to clarify R-S zoning. Assistant Director Saunders
clarified it had a maximum density of one unit per acre. Ms. Smith noted the Growth Policy was
not attempting to establish an urban zoning designation on the property in question and did not
dictate any kind of per acre calculation. Mr. Caldwell responded the Future Urban designation
required that it must be proven through an application process that the property is fit for
development. Assistant Director Saunders added that the Board had consensus that they would
not like to see the Bridger Bench developed at high densities. Ms. Costakis encouraged Mr.
Ziegler, Mr. Norton, and Mr. Petrie to submit their comments to the County. The Board
concurred that the map should remain Future Urban and should encompass that location as
proposed.
Vice President Henyon asked the Board to address the Norton property Land Use designation to
Business Park or Community Commercial. Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of the
site on the Land Use Map. Ms. Costakis asked why Staff did not want the designation to be
Community Commercial. Assistant Director Saunders responded Staff did not want commercial
development on all of the major corridors through the City and there was already a slight excess
of Community Commercial within the City.
Tom Stonecipher, 1705 W. College St., clarified that the request was to change the designation
from Business Park to Community Commercial. He noted the background of the property and
explained that Norton had spent a lot of money and the original reason for the designation from
Business Park to Residential Emphasis Mixed Use was lost. He stated he did not understand the
rationale of the designation and thought it was an attempt at a transition zone. He noted the
owner did not want the Business Park designation and summarized that he had difficulty with the
8
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
114
idea that Bozeman had enough Community Commercial. Mr. Mehl asked what the owner had
wanted to do that they couldn’t do. Mr. Stonecipher responded all their neighbors were
Community Commercial and there would be a different list of uses on the Norton’s 20 acre
parcel. Mr. Mehl asked for clarification of what use the owner intended that would not be
allowed with a Business Park designation. Mr. Stonecipher could not specifically state the use
the owner intended and responded the uses would just be different than what the owner had
expected. Mr. Caldwell stated the rationale for not having residential emphasis was reasonable
and the Growth Policy attempted to discourage commercial development along Huffine Lane.
Mr. Becker noted the Commission had determined that commercial development should be
located along Cottonwood Road instead of along Huffine Lane and after three hearings the
Commission had made it clear that they did not want to see commercial development located only
along Huffine Lane; he suggested the Board continue to uphold the decisions of the City of
Bozeman. Assistant Director Saunders concurred with Mr. Becker and suggested that, if the
Board agrees, the designation could be put back to Business Park which is what is shown on the
present Land Use Map for the existing 2020 Plan. Ms. Smith stated the Board had decided at a
previous meeting that the Community Commercial designation should terminate before the
Norton property. Ms. Costakis noted it was interesting that there were only a few areas depicted
as yellow on the map and it was not a pervasive designation; she added she thought the
Residential Mixed Use designation was a wave of the future. Mr. Quinn stated he was supportive
of the Business Park designation but would not support Community Commercial. Mr. Sypinski
stated his recollection of previous discussions for the property did not include anything other than
Residential Mixed Use and he saw no reason to change it do Business Park. The majority of the
Board decided the Residential Mixed Use designation should remain as proposed for the property.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of Mr. Pertzborn’s request for a change in Growth
Policy Designation from Business Park to Community Commercial. Ms. Swarthout responded
she had been supportive of the requested change. Ms. Smith concurred. Mr. Caldwell responded
he saw the rationale for Community Commercial. The Board concurred the property should be
designated as Community Commercial.
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to close the public hearing and continue
further discussion to the next meeting of the Board. The motion carried 8-1. Those voting aye
being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Ms.
Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski.
2. Chapter 16 (Continued from 1/21/09.)
Continued to next meeting.
ITEM 5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Mr. Caldwell expressed interest in being the President. Mr. Sypinski agreed.
Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Mehl. Mr. Mehl declined the nomination and seconded Mr.
9
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
115
10
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 3, 2009.
Caldwell’s nomination. Vice President Henyon stated he would be interested in remaining Vice
President.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Costakis seconded to elect Mr. Caldwell as President.
The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker, Ms.
Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl.
Those voting nay being none.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Costakis seconded to re-elect Mr. Henyon as Vice
President. The motion carried 9-0. Those voting aye being Vice President Henyon, Mr. Becker,
Ms. Costakis, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Sypinski, Ms. Swarthout, Ms. Smith, and Mr. Mehl.
Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business forthcoming.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, Vice President Henyon adjourned the
meeting at 10:20 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
116
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:19 p.m. in the
Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Bill Quinn
Erik Henyon
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Donna Swarthout Lucille Pope
Dawn Smith
Chris Mehl
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion
of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2009
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of February 3,
2009 as presented. The motion carried 6-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Henyon, Mr. Quinn, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF DRAFT GROWTH POLICY
1. Outstanding comments
Assistant Director Saunders presented public comment that had been submitted timely but the
PB had not previously received. He noted suggestions for language in five locations from
Prospera and added Staff was supportive of the recommended changes. The Planning Board
concurred that the language recommended by Prospera should be included.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the agriculture water facility language had been reviewed by
the City Attorney and had been found to be accurate and in keeping with State statute. President
Caldwell clarified that the language would reflect the public comment received with regard to
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009.
1
117
water rights references within the document.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of a parcel designated as Future Urban that was
requesting a change in Land Use Designation. He noted there had been discussion regarding the
re-designation of some properties to residential and noted this situation was similar. Mr.
Sypinski asked if the application were considered what the boundaries of the reclassification
would be. Assistant Director Saunders clarified and noted it was separated from the City by a
considerable amount of property that was currently outside of City limits.
Mr. Quinn noted that an applicant had come forward to ask for annexation of the property in the
past and the Planning Board had been opposed to that request as it would have been a
checkerboard annexation and not contiguous to the City. He noted the proposal had been within
the last 18 months and had encountered strong opposition from the community; he stated he
thought the Future Urban designation would be the best for that location. President Caldwell
asked the Board if anyone thought the Future Urban designation for the property should be
modified. Mr. Henyon asked if it had already been categorized as residential, why couldn’t
residential be located closer to the City. Assistant Director Saunders responded the existing
designation existed in that location to identify the residential development that had been in that
location for many years. The Board concurred that the parcel should remain Future Urban.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the location of the parcels owned by Northwood Land &
Livestock that had requested a change in Land Use Designation to a commercial designation. He
noted Staff had recommended the draft designation currently proposed and was not in favor of
changing the parcel to a commercial designation. Mr. Becker asked what businesses were
located there. Assistant Director Saunders noted the Motor Vehicle Division and Microtel Inn &
Suites were both located in that area. President Caldwell noted there was a fairly limited amount
of viable M-1 properties within the City limits and asked where cars would get repaired if they
were all turned into commercial designations.
Mr. Quinn asked if all of the lots being reviewed were within the City boundaries. Assistant
Director Saunders responded that all of the lots were within the City; he clarified that there was
an abundance of places for commercial uses and not as many for industrial uses. Mr. Sypinski
asked if the setback requirements in the Entryway Corridor would change if Northwood Land &
Livestock were given the commercial designation. Assistant Director Saunders responded, in
this instance, the setback requirements would not be affected. Mr. Henyon stated he did not
know the percentage of how much industrial use had been lost with the Story Mill Neighborhood
proposal, but he thought M-1 would be needed for future industrial development as it was
limited; he noted his concern was that the owner would not be able to put a business into an
industrial zoning. Assistant Director Saunders responded there was a large list of allowable uses
within the industrial zoning designations. Mr. Becker asked if the letter was asking something
that the Board should not discuss as it was a setback issue; he asked why the parcels in question
would be tied to the setback requirements on 7th Avenue. Assistant Director Saunders clarified
that it was two separate requests. Mr. Becker suggested the proposed change should be made in
a formal application for a Zone Map Amendment after the Community Plan was adopted.
President Caldwell noted there were a number of opportunities within the Growth Policy to
review the Entryway Corridors and those requirements. The Board concurred that the property
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009.
2
118
should remain industrial.
Assistant Director Saunders noted the one unresolved public comment that remained was from
Mr. Delaney and the property in question was north of East Main Street. He noted Staff had
recommended an industrial land use designation on a portion of the property in question and
there was a wetlands mitigation site in the adjacent area. He noted the City was allowed to do
more than the minimum requirement and spoke to the fact that the Charter stated it was the
City’s choice to determine the degree of the correlation between zoning and planning. He noted
the property was currently zoned a combination of M-1 and B-2, but the Army Corp of
Engineers had taken jurisdiction of the wetland area and noted they had not seemed supportive
of development of the area as it would affect other wetland areas.
Assistant Director Saunders noted Staff had determined that a large portion of the request was
not within a wetland area and the property as a whole would still have a significant developable
area. He noted Staff was supportive of changing the portion outside of the wetland area to what
had been requested. Mr. Sypinski asked if there was anything being developed on the site
currently. Assistant Director Saunders responded MT Rail Link and MT Pole were both
developing in the area but nothing had been approved on the portion of area under discussion.
Mr. Henyon clarified that the part of the request south of the Village Downtown was within M-1
and B-2 zoning designations. Assistant Director Saunders responded he was correct. Mr.
Henyon asked if the area had been platted. Assistant Director Saunders responded a portion of
the site had a plat, but there had not yet been development proposed for the rest of the site. Mr.
Quinn asked if the M-1 zoning had been included in one of Delaney’s earlier applications that
had contained parkland in the wetland area. Assistant Director Saunders responded Mr. Delaney
could retain the wetland and other developers could purchase it for cash-in-lieu of parkland.
President Caldwell asked how the Land Use Map would be affected if a road network had to go
through the wetland (such as the future extension of Highland Boulevard). Assistant Director
Saunders responded that a bridge would have to be built or land would need to be purchased and
the wetland would have to be filled to provide for the road; he noted a road there would have
little value for immediate local access due to the necessary curvature and as it would be elevated
either through fill or the construction of a bridge.
Mr. Sypinski noted he would need to leave for an appointment and stated he would prefer to see
both parcels remain wetlands but would concede that he could see the reason behind the owner’s
request. Ms. Costakis suggested she would like to see the properties remain wetlands but was
concerned that she should abstain as she owned property within the Village Downtown.
President Caldwell responded there seemed to unresolved issues with the Army Corp of
Engineers and the viability of the wetlands would be beyond the information provided to the
Board; he stated he was supportive of Staff’s recommendations and that the map stays as
depicted. Mr. Henyon concurred with President Caldwell that the property should remain as
Staff proposed; he noted the wetland was partly a result of grading and had occurred due to the
topography of the area and the developed areas owned by the MT Rail Link; he noted he would
like to see the Highland Boulevard connectivity though he did not necessarily believe the
“wetland” was a true wetland area. Mr. Quinn stated he believed the land had value regardless
of whether it was designated park and open space, especially if it were eventually used for a right
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009.
3
119
of way, though he did not want to add parks and open spaces through the back door; he
suggested honoring what was proposed by Staff for the benefit of the City. Assistant Director
Saunders clarified that there were several ways to draw value from the property. President
Caldwell noted the City would not require the existing zoning be changed on any property and
stated he thought the designation should remain as proposed by Staff. Assistant Director
Saunders responded the City could undertake a zoning change if they thought it was in the best
interest of the City and the ordinance provided that neither land use designation nor zoning
designations were “takings” unless the property was rendered valueless. Assistant Director
Saunders noted specific analysis would need to be done on a site to site basis, though he did not
think a “takings” would occur if the color on the map went forward as proposed. The Board
concurred (with Ms. Costakis abstaining) that the map should remain as proposed by Staff.
(North of railroad to revert to industrial and the balance to remain as depicted.)
Mr. Sypinski stated he would need to leave the meeting for an appointment.
2. Chapter 16 (Continued from 2/3/09.)
Assistant Director Chris Saunders stated he had received an e-mail from Ms. Swarthout
regarding the education section of the Growth Policy and the addition of an action item under
Implementation Policy #49 and noted Staff had no objections to the proposed language.
President Caldwell stated his personal objective was to forward a recommendation of approval
for the Draft Growth Policy to the City Commission with Staff and Planning Board comments.
President Caldwell called for public comment.
Lucille Pope, Alliance for Building Communities, noted comments she had made at another
meeting regarding time frames of implementation policies for the Affordable Housing language
(35, 37, and 39).
President Caldwell called for questions or revisions from the Board regarding Chapter 16.
Mr. Henyon stated he was not supportive of the word “ensure” being used in Affordable Housing
language as people would need to qualify and apply for that type of housing and suggested
“ensure” be replaced with “for”. He stated on page 16-11 under Economic Development,
“reducing the costs of locating businesses within City limits to make it easier for businesses to
locate within the City” or including incentives (such as grants, revolving loans, parkland credits,
etc.) should be included. Assistant Director Saunders suggested “e” could be expanded or “g”
could be added under #49 to include the language Mr. Henyon had suggested. President
Caldwell added that the chapter Prospera was preparing would more specifically address Mr.
Henyon’s concerns and the Board could discuss it at that time. Mr. Henyon stated that under
Chapter 11 there should be an action item to provide for the timing of traffic lights and it should
have a priority. Assistant Director Saunders suggested it could be a lettered item under #45.
The Board concurred that the word “ensure” could be changed to “promote” in item #38. The
Board concurred that item #49 should include an action item as a place holder to encourage
businesses to locate within the City limits until the updated economic development plan and
chapter had been completed. The Board concurred the timing of traffic lights should be included
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009.
4
120
in Chapter 11.
Mr. Quinn stated on page 16-9, #35, the priority should be moved up to one or two years after
the plan’s adoption to provide for manufactured housing. He stated he had no further comments.
The Board concurred that the increase in priority for affordable housing should be included.
Ms. Costakis stated she saw nothing regarding adopting a Complete Streets Policy and asked if
one would be adopted. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language had been included
in the document on page 4-4 as well as in other locations within the document and would be
adopted when the Commission adopted the draft document. Ms. Costakis stated her concern was
that it should be included as an implementation policy. President Caldwell stated he thought it
was a recognized term but it should be included as a clearly stated action item. Assistant
Director Saunders responded it could be added in #74 as an action item. The Board concurred
that the language should be included in item #74 as an action item.
Ms. Costakis asked if the incentives for historic preservation could be included for sustainability
features. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City would not require certification for
sustainability features but would encourage those features; he suggested the City should not
reinvent the wheel and LEED certification and other programs had been provided for those types
of development. He stated they were looking at a pilot program with Greater Yellowstone
Partnership for the City as a whole with regard to sustainability that would be a potential option
and noted that E-3.2 included some of the recommended language. Mr. Henyon stated
contractors are required by the State to be licensed through the State and he thought as a business
owner that those businesses would use sustainability as a marketing technique; he noted he was
hesitant to add specific language without giving local businesses the opportunity to comment.
The Board concurred that sustainability features should be rewarded through recognition just as
historic preservation had been addressed. Ms. Costakis suggested the same steps for
sustainability had not been achieved and suggested the promotion and recognition of those
practices. Assistant Director Saunders responded the language could be included in objective
#12. The Board concurred that a clear action item should be included in objective #12 to address
sustainability (President Caldwell suggested a program like Green Blocks in Missoula or
Northwestern Energy Incentives).
Ms. Costakis stated “form based zoning” showed up in the document and she was unclear what
the City would do with “form based zoning”. Assistant Director Saunders responded the City
did not know until they had completed investigations regarding how much “form based zoning”
the City would need.
Mr. Henyon added that he thought it should be up to the contractor to receive certifications in
LEED or Preservation, to construct under those requirements, and to market them as such so he
disagreed with including the language more specifically in the document. Assistant Director
Saunders responded it would be an informational and promotional statement only and there
would be no certification requirements mandated through the City. Mr. Quinn agreed with
Assistant Director Saunders that the language should be geared toward education and promotion
of sustainability.
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009.
5
121
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of February 18, 2009.
6
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Henyon seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for the Draft Bozeman Community Plan in it’s entirety with agreed upon
Planning Board edits. The motion carried 5-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Henyon, and Mr. Quinn. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Henyon stated he would be unable to attend the TCC meetings as an alternate to President
Caldwell and asked if any other member would like to volunteer for the position. President
Caldwell stated he would do his best to attend the TCC meetings and negate the need for a new
alternate if Mr. Henyon would remain in the position.
President Caldwell stated he thought it would be important as an advisory board to the City
Commission to check into adoption of the document and suggested the Board meet with the City
Commission to have a dialog over the Draft Community Plan. Mr. Becker suggested the Board
attend a policy meeting at noon on a Thursday and added that the contracting market made
planning issues more serious and there would be implications that should be addressed. Mr.
Quinn suggested it would also be important for both entities to understand each other.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting
at 9:20 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
122
MINUTES
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
President Caldwell called the regular meeting of the Planning Board to order at 7:19 p.m. in the
Community Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse Avenue, Bozeman, Montana and
directed the secretary to take attendance.
Members Present: Staff Present:
Sean Becker Chris Saunders, Assistant Director of Planning
Cathy Costakis David Skelton, Senior Planner
Bill Quinn Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Donna Swarthout
Ed Sypinski
Brian Caldwell
Chris Mehl
Members Absent: Guests Present:
Erik Henyon Shaowei Wang
Dawn Smith Ted Lang
Matt Cotterman
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (0-15 MINUTES)
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and
not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing no public comment forthcoming, President Caldwell closed the public comment portion
of the meeting.
ITEM 3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2009
Mr. Sypinski stated he was not the Vice President of the Planning Board and the minutes would
need corrected throughout. He added that he was not in attendance for the vote on the final
motion so should not have been included.
Ms. Costakis stated on page 5 in the 2nd paragraph the word “ever” should be stricken from the
first sentence and in her next sentence the word “not” should be stricken and the language
“included as an implementation policy” should be added.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to approve the minutes of February 18,
2009 with corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr.
Becker, Ms. Costakis, Ms. Swarthout, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting
nay being none.
1
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
123
ITEM 4. CONSENT ITEM
1. Bozeman Community Plan Resolution #P-07006
Mr. Becker stated the last page indicated the year 2008 and should say 2009. Mr. Mehl added
that the “whereas” occurred on the page prior. Assistant Director Saunders responded the
“whereas” were both needed due to the mechanics of Planning Board review and then the
outcome of Planning Board review.
President Caldwell stated he looked forward to promoting the ideas in the Community Plan and
the end result would be worth the effort; implementing the plan would be more rewarding.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Ms. Swarthout seconded, to approve Bozeman Community
Plan Planning Board Resolution #P-07006 with date corrections. The motion carried 7-0. Those
voting aye being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms.
Swarthout, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. PROJECT REIVEW
1. Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application #P-07051 (Laurel Glen MaSub
Phases III & IV) - A Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application on behalf of
the owner, Hinesley Development Company, LLC, and the representative, C&H
Engineering & Surveying, to allow the subdivision of 68.9107 acres and the
creation of 115 residential lots. The property is legally described as Remainder
Lot 2 and Lot 3, MiSub No. 201, SE ¼, Sec. 4, T2S, R5E, City of Bozeman,
Gallatin County, Montana. (Skelton)
Senior Planner David Skelton presented the Staff Report noting he had asked the Recording
Secretary to distribute exhibits. He stated the powerpoint presentation was fairly long as most of
the Board was not in attendance for review of the original phases of the Laurel Glen Subdivision.
He noted the application consisted of 68.9 acres that had originally been annexed in 2001 and
added that there was eight years of history on the property. He noted the inclusion of PLI zoning
within the subdivision and noted it was one of the first major subdivisions that had included key
goals from the 2020 Community Plan. He noted to the north of the subdivision was still County
jurisdiction and listed those developments to the south, east, and west. He noted the preliminary
plat was reviewed in 2002 and granted conditional approval that included an expiration date of
November 2006; he added a second one-year extension had not been granted and the applicant
had been required to resubmit under the new zoning regulations (U.D.O.). He stated the
application had been reviewed and general comments had been provided to address parkland,
trails, wetlands, accesses, etc. He noted after the recommendations had been considered,
substantial changes had been made that had addressed some of the issues, but not all of them.
He noted the original preliminary plat submittal included a number of variance requests; block
length, ZMA to mirror land use designations, etc. He stated the ZMA would not been
considered until City Commission approval of the preliminary plat but a condition of approval
had been included to require a formal ZMA be submitted within a year of City Commission
approval. He noted the one historical feature was the existing farmstead on the site and that
location also contained mature vegetation and associated wetlands with a watercourse. He noted
2
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
124
they were significant wetlands along the Baxter Creek corridor that advisory boards had
recommended be maintained.
President Caldwell noted the specific proposal should be discussed without background
information as it was not pertinent to the application under review. Planner Skelton concurred
and noted the WRB and Park & Recreation Advisory Board were not supportive of the requested
wetland variances and the applicant had been required to re-delineate the designated wetlands for
the site. He noted the parkland requirements at the time of preliminary plat approval allowed the
subdivision to create their parkland in later phases of the development and noted the balance of
3.4281 acres of parkland development in Laurel Glen phases 1 & 2 had not yet been completed;
adding that the applicant would be responsible for a total of 8.9383 acres with this application.
He noted with the original application there was a need to eliminate the number of variances
requested for access on Durston Road and the wetlands had been addressed without the need for
encroachments. He noted the aggregation of parklands had been achieved and the ingress/egress
on Durston Road had been eliminated and double frontage lots had been included along Durston
Road. He noted there were watercourses on the site, but the site was within a 100-year or even a
500 year floodplain though Staff would encourage people who wanted to install basements to
retain a professional engineer to evaluate the water table level prior to construction. He noted
the culverts would need to be upgraded and the riparian vegetation would need to be maintained,
though there was no determined wildlife habitat on the site. He noted the Staff condition with
regard to noxious weed control is uncommon for most proposals, but is necessary and must be
secured with a financial guarantee. Mr. Mehl asked the amount of the bond. Planner Skelton
responded an estimate by a certified applicator multiplied by 150% would be required based on
the subdivision’s physical features; he noted the management of noxious weeds was not working
with just a Memoranda of Understanding with the County weed control office.
President Caldwell asked if Staff had established a passing/failing grade for noxious weed
control. Planner Skelton responded the noxious weed office clearly defined the types and
amounts of noxious weeds to be controlled in the MOU; he added the County Weed Control
Office concerns are echoed by the City’s weed control office.
Planner Skelton noted the streets would be City standard and include all public infrastructures
and noted Oak Street would be improved to half a minor arterial street. He noted Engineering
conditions of approval were standard. He noted much of the modifications of the proposal had
been with regard to the parkland and those park areas being aggregated. He noted the trail
systems and the importance of the system along the Baxter Creek corridor, north along I-90. He
noted the trails that would be included would be Class 2 trails and a six foot boulevard sidewalk
would be required around the park. He stated the aggregated parkland had been addressed and
included the condition that a park master plan would need to be submitted and approved within
three months of preliminary plat approval; he noted if the parkland improvements were
completed this year, the proposal would be eligible for the full three year approval.
Mr. Sypinski asked about the crossing of the trail on Annie Street. Planner Skelton responded
some mid-block crossing in the interior might be necessary. Mr. Sypinski asked where exactly
the B-1 Commercial development would be located. Planner Skelton responded there would be
two B-1 lots and noted those locations to the west of the public park.. Mr. Sypinski asked if the
3
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
125
initial commercial site was south of Annie Street. Planner Skelton responded the master plan for
the property had been required and the commercial node had been located generally just north of
Annie Street; he directed the Board to that location.
Planner Skelton stated Staff hoped to include the residents of the subdivision with regard to the
design of the parkland and noted that within one year the applicant would need to have the
parkland improvements for phases 1 & 2 completed which would make them eligible for the full
three year approval time on the preliminary plat. He noted the locations of two pedestrian
pathways with a 25 foot wide public access easement, in-lieu of dedicated parkland. He noted
workforce housing requirements had been met with twelve dwelling units being provided. He
stated Staff felt the extension of Christian Way, southward would be necessary to break up the
long blocks. He noted which variances were being requested for block length and added that
Staff was supportive of those requests with the exception of Block 21 and 22. He stated Staff
recommended Christian Way be continued to a T intersection at Glendirk. He noted the City did
not enforce HOA documents unless there were specific conditions of approval that were being
ignored. He stated Staff was supportive of the requested Variances with Staff conditions with
the exceptions of Lots 21 & 22.
Matt Cotterman, C&H Engineering, stated the owner had gone through a number of renditions
on the proposal. He stated they felt they had addressed most of the advisory bodies concerns and
that it was a better plan than what they had begun with. He stated he hoped the treatment of
double frontage lots would be consistent and noted an open space had been provided along
Durston Road. He stated the block length variance had been requested, but it would not be a big
deal to continue the north/south road through blocks 21 and 22, though if the road was included a
variance would be needed for less than the minimum block length instead of greater than the
minimum and the owner’s preference would not be to include the street. He noted the remaining
parkland required with phases 1 & 2 did not yet exist and the owner had already started grading
and installing irrigation for the site; the owner had also volunteered to install a playground on the
site. He clarified that the reason the park land had not been installed in phases 1 & 2 was due to
the City Commission not granting the extension of the original approval. Mr. Becker asked
where the double frontage lots would be located. Mr. Cotterman noted those locations along
Durston Road. Mr. Becker asked Mr. Cotterman’s idea of double frontage. Mr. Cotterman
responded the appearance of the front of a structure would be maintained for both sides of the
structures.
President Caldwell opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Shaowei Wang stated he lived in Laurel Glen Phase 1 and he had received a certified letter
regarding the evening’s meeting. He noted he had expected there would be a playground located
within the subdivision and the homeowners would like to see a plan for the park land before the
subdivision was approved. He stated the zoning designation had been changed from R-1 to R-2
zoning which would depreciate the value of his home; he stated he was not supportive of the
change from R-1 to R-2 zoning. He stated the design of the proposed blocks would direct traffic
right in front of his house and cause traffic issues as there was no way out on the south side of
the development.
4
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
126
Ted Lang, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, stated that Baxter Creek presented an opportunity to
achieve a continuous greenway as things are built out over the coming decades to create what
might be the best green way in the City. He clarified that Block 31, Lots 1 & 2, caused concerns
as the UDO required a fence along the greenway and the buildable area of the lots would not be
affected if the fence were located further to the east. He noted Gallatin Valley Land Trust was
supportive of the revised proposal with regard to trail crossings mid-block and Bob Murray of
the City Engineering Department had schematics for the safe design of the crossing. He noted
that when/if the land to the north was developed there might be a mid-block crossing but that
would be decided in the future and there would need to be a mechanism in place to provide for a
crossing over Durston Road to the south to Valley West Subdivision, but it would require more
study.
Seeing no further public comment forthcoming, the public comment portion of the meeting was
closed.
Planner Skelton responded to Mr. Wang regarding the zoning designation of R-2 on the site and
that the size of the lots limited density to single family lots regardless of the zoning designation.
He stated Laurel Parkway was meant to maintain connectivity to Durston Road and would assist
in breaking the subdivision into four quadrants; the majority of the traffic would be on Laurel
Parkway until the connection to Oak Street had been completed. Mr. Wang responded there was
no way for those residents to get out of the subdivision without going through the earlier phases
of the development (in front of his house).
Mr. Mehl asked if assurances to the developer were given that smaller blocks would be allowed
given that Christian Way would go through. Planner Skelton responded Staff felt that the
extension of Christian Way would provide better circulation through the site. Mr. Mehl asked
how many residential lots would be lost if Christian Way were put through. Planner Skelton
responded roughly four lots would be lost and that the Board could find that, in lieu of a street,
smaller lots or pathways could be included instead.
Mr. Quinn asked if Glenwood Drive would go through to Rosa Subdivision. Planner Skelton
responded it would continue through. Mr. Quinn responded the longer blocks could be accessed
from Rosa Subdivision on Glenwood Drive and noted the requested block length was consistent
with what existed adjacent to the site to the west in phase 1 of the subdivision.
Mr. Sypinski asked Planner Skelton if there would be improvements at the Annie Street
intersection of Laurel Parkway. Planner Skelton responded the roundabout would not change.
Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification of the Engineering conditions for the proposal, as well as
how the deviations are allowed. Planner Skelton responded that if the applicant met the criteria
for consideration, there were alternatives in lieu of full access; such as right in, right out. He
stated one of the Deviations requested had been invariantly listed as a Variance. Mr. Sypinski
asked if the Board chose to support Staff’s conditions then would the Deviations be included.
Planner Skelton suggested that the Board discuss the requested Variances first and determine
those that could, or could not be supported. The requested Deviations are at the discretion of the
City Engineer’s Office based on supplemental information that must still be submitted by the
applicant. If the Staff conditions were approved, it would be approved with the requested
5
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
127
Variances except for the block length for Block 21 and 22, as outlined by Staff.
President Caldwell asked for clarification between Variances and Deviations. Planner Skelton
explained.
Ms. Swarthout stated Mr. Skelton had done a good job with his presentation and Staff Report.
She noted the school system indicated they had did not have the capacity to support the children
that would be living within the subdivision and asked if the City tracked school’s capacities.
Planner Skelton responded the school district was notified when a subdivision was proposed.
Mr. Becker stated that on page 3 (i.e., pre-application plan), Glenkirk Lane was depicted as
going through but was now called Christian Way and asked if that is what the Board would be
approving if so moved with Staff conditions. Planner Skelton responded that with the
recommended conditions and denial of the block length for Block 21 and 22 that Christian Way
would extend southward to “T” with Glenkirk Drive as depicted on the preliminary plat
application.. Mr. Becker suggested it did not seem to be a threat to have ingress/egress off of
Durston Road. Planner Skelton responded Staff saw no hardship that would make it necessary to
provide access onto the arterial, Durston Road. President Caldwell asked for clarification of Mr.
Becker’s inquiries. Mr. Becker explained and added that the playground was coming and the
property had always been R-2; he added the issue of non-safe conditions for mid-block crossings
would need to be resolved. Planner Skelton responded that the Commission was no longer
supportive of mid-block crossings and prefers smaller lots with a reasonable grid of local streets
that achieve a higher level on vehicular circulation that avoids conflicts with pedestrian
movement. Mr. Cotterman added the mid-block crossings along the east side connected to an
existing trail system and park in the Rosa Subdivision.
Ms. Costakis asked if continuing if there was a traffic reason for the connection of Christian
Way. Planner Skelton responded it would improve the circulation and connectivity of those two
blocks and enhance the pedestrian connectivity as well. Ms. Costakis asked if Immanual Way
was not extended, could there be a pedestrian connection. Planner Skelton responded there
would be a public trail in the Baxter Creek corridor in close proximity to that location; however,
an access easement could be extended. Mr. Sypinski suggested the existing farmstead would be
disturbed if Immanual Way were extended through. Ms. Costakis asked how one would get to
Durston from one location. Planner Skelton responded there could be a pedestrian pathway
between the farmstead lot and the lot next to it if deemed necessary. President Caldwell stated
pedestrian movement could be along Glenkirk; he noted the pre-application exhibit presented
was not adequate as it did not depict the accurate street names and block numbers and suggested
the City Commission receive less convoluted information.
Mr. Sypinski stated he was concerned with the safety of families going to the park if a paved
street were included in that location. Ms. Swarthout disagreed that the street should be removed.
President Caldwell asked for Board opinions on Christian Way. Ms. Costakis suggested an
easement if Christian Way were not taken through.
President Caldwell noted that the Christian Way extension through blocks 21 & 22 (condition
#6) was an object of discussion and asked if the Board would be interested in modifying any
6
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
128
other conditions of approval. Mr. Quinn asked if Staff thought the conditions of approval were
adequate due to the failure of the subdivision to follow up on any of the weed control (condition
#3) and asked if the restrictions would be adequate to implement weed control and get
compliance. Planner Skelton responded he thought there was now enough teeth as provided in
the condition to demand compliance with weed control requirements and Staff was entertaining a
new regulatory standard that would be policy with regard to future subdivisions; he noted the
new system was far better than what was now in place. President Caldwell asked if there was a
certain amount of weeds on the premises that would be acceptable or not. Planner Skelton
responded site visits would be conducted by the County and City weed control offices and the
decision would be made based on the expertise of those Staffs. Mr. Quinn stated condition #3
would be one part of dealing with noncompliance addressing the public comment from
concerned residents of the subdivision.
Ms. Costakis stated she thought there was a lighting issue that wasn’t specified well enough
(condition #9). Planner Skelton responded specific code provisions for lighting along the trail
are required but were not clearly addressed in the application for trails intersecting with streets.
Ms. Costakis asked how the Board would proceed since they had different ideas regarding
Christian Way and suggested the Board discuss the item first. President Caldwell noted Ms.
Swarthout had suggested a 20 foot pedestrian pathway connection along the common boundary
between lots 7 & 8 in Block 20. Ms. Costakis asked if the grading & drainage Variance request
to discharge into a ditch had been allowed by the City Engineering Department and if they would
be dealing with that issue. President Caldwell responded that as part of the Community Plan, the
respective rights of the ditch company had been brought to their attention and the ditch company
would discourage that arrangement; he suggested the issue be cleared up prior to City
Commission review. Mr. Mehl clarified that if the applicant thought they needed a Variance and
Staff thought not, then the applicant did not need one. Ms. Costakis asked why a vehicle would
have to go right off of Glenkirk Drive. Planner Skelton responded it was due to a median in that
location along Laurel Parkway. Mr. Cotterman added that a full access must be at least 150 feet
away from a controlled intersection.
President Caldwell asked for a feeling from the membership of the Board regarding Christian
Way; he noted the trail access on block 20 between lots 7 & 8 to provide pedestrian access and a
condition regarding resolving the storm water discharge with the ditch company should also be
discussed.
MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval to
the City Commission for Laurel Glen MaSub Phases III & IV with Staff conditions.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to direct the applicant to resolve the
storm water discharge with the ditch company prior to the City Commission hearing and to direct
Staff to pursue a legal opinion from City Attorney regarding the Home Owners Association. The
amendment carried 7-0. The amendment carried 7-0. Those voting aye being President
Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Swarthout, and Mr. Sypinski.
Those voting nay being none.
AMENDMENT: Ms. Swarthout moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to add a condition to provide
7
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
129
trail access for Block 20 between Lots 7 & 8 to provide pedestrian access. Mr. Becker stated he
agreed with the first two points but he did not support the pedestrian access between lots 7 & 8.
Mr. Sypinski stated he did not agree with condition #6 for the extension of Christian Way and
therefore, would not support the motion or the amendment. Ms. Swarthout asked if Ms. Costakis
would support the suggested trail, as Ms. Swarthout had previously suggested, in the event that
Christian Way was not extended. Ms. Costakis suggested she was concerned that there was not
enough access. Mr. Mehl suggested there were accesses on either end and he thought two access
points per block would be sufficient. Mr. Cotterman stated a 25 foot access in that location
would remove two lots in every block, but it could probably be squeezed in to Block 20. Planner
Skelton added that four lots would be lost anyway if Christian Way were extended. Ms.
Swarthout withdrew the amendment.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Quinn seconded, to eliminate Staff condition of
approval #6. The amendment failed 3-4. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, and
Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, Ms. Swarthout, and Ms.
Costakis.
Ms. Swarthout stated that as children grow they are allowed to first ride their bike to the
neighbor’s, then down the block, and finally around the block; she added that as a parent she
would feel much more comfortable keeping Staff condition #6. Mr. Becker concurred with Ms.
Swarthout. Mr. Mehl stated he was supportive of the removal of condition #6 but he saw no
evidence that adding cars would increase the safety in the subdivision; he noted the requested
block lengths were not much more than the ideal length. Mr. Sypinski stated other applications
that had been proposed had been up to about 600 feet and this proposal was only slightly beyond
that. President Caldwell stated he agreed with Mr. Sypinski that there were no demonstrated
physical constraints on the site so he was supportive of the requested block length.
Ms. Costakis asked how the mid-block crossing would be handled. Planner Skelton responded
bulb outs might be required. Mr. Cotterman added that signage and striped/scored concrete
would be required. President Caldwell responded the standards of the Transportation Plan would
be the governing authority.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Mehl moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to modify Staff condition #6 to
require that Christian Way be extended as a type 2 pedestrian path instead of a street to Glenkirk.
The amendment carried 4-3. Those voting aye being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Ms. Costakis,
and Mr. Mehl. Those voting nay being President Caldwell, Mr. Becker, and Ms. Swarthout.
AMENDMENT: Ms. Costakis moved, Mr. Sypinski seconded, to extend the type II pedestrian
path in place of Christian Way to Durston Road. Ayes Caldwell, Costakis. The amendment
failed 2-5. Those voting aye being President Caldwell and Ms. Costakis. Those voting nay
being Mr. Sypinski, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Mehl, Mr. Becker, and Ms. Swarthout.
FINAL MOTION: Mr. Quinn moved, Mr. Mehl seconded, to forward a recommendation of
approval to the City Commission for Laurel Glen MaSub Phases III & IV with Staff conditions,
to direct the applicant to resolve the storm water discharge with the ditch company prior to the
City Commission hearing, to direct Staff to pursue a legal opinion from City Attorney regarding
8
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
130
9
City of Bozeman Planning Board Minutes of March 17, 2009.
the Home Owners Association, and to modify Staff condition #6 to require that Christian Way be
extended as a type 2 pedestrian path instead of a street to Glenkirk. The motion carried 6-1.
Those voting aye being Mr. Quinn, Ms. Costakis, Mr. Mehl, President Caldwell, Mr. Becker,
and Ms. Swarthout. Those voting nay being Mr. Sypinski.
ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS
President Caldwell stated the joint meeting between Planning Board and City Commission
would be held on the first meeting in May to discuss implementation policies for the Community
Plan. Mr. Sypinski suggested the Board take the lead on asking other advisory board members
to comment on the Growth Policy at City Commission. Mr. Mehl asked President Caldwell’s
plan regarding the implementation of the Growth Policy. President Caldwell responded the
support of the Board was his intention. Ms. Swarthout stated she agreed with President
Caldwell, but she did not feel super excited about the plan enough to go out and be a cheerleader,
but someone would need to be available to answer questions. Mr. Mehl stated he did not expect
there to be a large number of comments that had not already been made and it could not be
implemented until it was passed and things must be done in order. Mr. Becker responded it
seemed the most contentious issue was the Future Urban Land Use designation.
ITEM 7. ADJOURNMENT
Seeing there was no further business before the Board, President Caldwell adjourned the meeting
at 10:18 p.m.
__________________________________ __________________________________
Brian Caldwell, President Chris Saunders, Assistant Director
Planning Board Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
131
1
RESOLUTION NO. 4163
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF BOZEMAN ADOPTING THE
BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, A GROWTH POLICY, AS ALLOWED BY TITLE 76,
CHAPTER 1, PART 6, MONTANA CODE ANNOTATED (M.C.A.)
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by Resolution of the
Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-1-106(1), M.C.A. states that the Planning Board is responsible for
preparing growth policies, if requested by the governing body; and
WHEREAS, The Bozeman City Commission directed the Bozeman Planning Board and the
staff of the City of Bozeman’s Department of Planning and Community Development to prepare an
update to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan originally adopted on October 22, 2001 by
Resolution 3486; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update as
requested; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman retained Clarion Associates to conduct an outside review
of the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, Clarion Associates prepared a report for the City which was received in
September 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board undertook a variety of public outreach events and practices
to encourage public input and participation in the drafting of the update; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board initiated the preparation of an update to
the adopted growth policy and all related documents and materials were properly submitted and
reviewed, and all public hearings and public meetings were advertised in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 76-1-602, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission adopted Resolution 4112 on July 21, 2008
stating their intent to develop a growth policy which would contain in addition to the mandatory
elements, those elements of 76-1-601(4)(c), MCA; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board held public hearings on Wednesday
January 21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009, to receive and review all written and oral testimony
on the request for said update of the growth policy; and
WHEREAS, Staff presented a summary description of the updated growth policy and
answered questions for the Planning Board after which the public was invited to give testimony; and
132
2
WHEREAS, numerous written comments were provided to the Planning Board before and
during the public hearing, and verbal comments were received during the public hearings, with said
comments being summarized or included in the minutes and other record of the public hearings;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board considered all oral and written comments
they had received during the public comment period at their public hearings on Wednesday January
21, 2008 and Tuesday, February 6, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board closed the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board discussed the issues raised in the public comment as well as
items of concern to the Planning Board and the requirements of law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board identified and directed changes to be made to the text and
maps to better reflect the purpose and intent of the Board and in response to questions or comment
provided by the public; and
WHEREAS, a motion was made to recommend approval of the growth policy with changes
as directed by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, City of Bozeman Planning Board, on February 18, 2009, on a vote of 5 to 0,
recommended adoption by the Bozeman City Commission of the Public Comment Draft of the
Bozeman Community Plan as amended by the Planning Board
WHEREAS, a revised draft incorporating the directed changes was prepared and made
available for public review prior to the public hearing to be conducted by the City Commission prior
to any action to adopt a revised growth policy; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised as required by statute to be held on April 13,
2009 before the City Commission to consider the Planning Board recommendation and accept
public testimony regarding the updated growth policy; and
WHEREAS, all public testimony received by the City after the advertisement for the
Planning Board public hearing, minutes of the Planning Board’s public hearing and deliberations,
and the draft document were provided to the City Commission in advance of their public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Commission of the City of
Bozeman, Montana, that:
133
3
Section 1
That pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 1, Part 6, MCA it adopts the Bozeman Community
Plan and that the document shall be as follows:
See Exhibit A.
Section 2
Directive.
That City staff and advisory boards are directed to work on implementing this plan as
time and resources allow.
Section 3
Directive.
That staff is directed to prepare a presentation draft of the adopted plan to facilitate the use
of the Bozeman Community Plan by the public.
Section 4
Severability.
If any provision of this growth policy or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this growth
policy which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the
provisions of this growth policy are declared to be severable.
Section 5
Savings Provision.
This growth policy does not affect the rights of duties that matured, penalties and
assessments that were incurred or proceedings that began before the effective date of this resolution.
Section 6
134
4
Effective Date.
This growth policy shall be in full force and effect upon passage
DATED this __________ day of ________________, 2009.
KAAREN JACOBSEN
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
STACY ULMEN
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
Bozeman City Attorney
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
1
Chris Saunders
From:Steve Ziegler [sziegler@san.rr.com]
Sent:Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:43 AM
To:Stacy Ulmen; Kaaren Jacobson; Jeff Krauss; Jeff Rupp; Sean Becker; Eric Bryson; Planning;
Andy Epple; Chris Saunders
Subject:City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission hearing for
April 13, 2009. Part 1
Attachments:CityGrowthPolicyLetter.doc; CountyGrowthPolicyLetter.doc
To:
Bozeman City Commission
c/o City Clerk Stacey Ulman
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Email: sulmen@bozeman.net
Please distribute this correspondence to the Bozeman City Commission Members for the Hearing on April 13,
2009.
Mayor Kaaren Jacobson 587-5968 kjacobson@bozeman.net
Deputy Mayor/ Commissioner Jeff Krauss 582-2341 jkrauss@bozeman.net
Commissioner Jeff Rupp 586-1380 jrupp@bozeman.net
Commissioner Sean Becker 581-7571 sbecker@bozeman.net
Commissioner Eric Bryson 582-2347 ebryson@bozeman.net
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Or PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: (406) 582-2260
Fax: (406) 582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
Attn: Planning Director - Andy Epple AICP
aepple@bozeman.net
Assistant Director - Chris Saunders AICP
csaunders@bozeman.net
.
RE: City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission hearing for April 13, 2009
will consider adoption of a revised and updated growth policy as recommended from the Bozeman Planning
Board.
Please find attached a letter of concerns regarding the City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. We
realize that this is both a City of Bozeman issue as well as a Gallatin County Issue. A similar letter has been
sent to the Gallatin County Commissioners and Planning Department (also attached). The previous letters sent
to the Bozeman Planning Board through their process will be forwarded via separate e-mail for your reference.
We are asking our city leaders to be visionary and proactive in protecting the quality of life and environment
that makes Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley such an exceptional place to live, work and recreate.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
210
2
Steve Ziegler
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
sziegler@san.rr.com
Cell Ph (BEST #) (406) 599-0955
Home Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
If there any questions with this message, then please do not hesitate to respond.
211
March 31, 2009
To:
Bozeman City Commission
c/o City Clerk Stacey Ulman
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Email: sulmen@bozeman.net
Please distribute this correspondence to the Bozeman City Commission Members for
the Hearing on April 13, 2009.
Mayor Kaaren Jacobson 587-5968 kjacobson@bozeman.net
Deputy Mayor/ Commissioner Jeff Krauss 582-2341 jkrauss@bozeman.net
Commissioner Jeff Rupp 586-1380 jrupp@bozeman.net
Commissioner Sean Becker 581-7571 sbecker@bozeman.net
Commissioner Eric Bryson 582-2347 ebryson@bozeman.net
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Or PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: (406) 582-2260
Fax: (406) 582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
Attn: Planning Director - Andy Epple AICP
aepple@bozeman.net
Assistant Director - Chris Saunders AICP
csaunders@bozeman.net
.
RE: City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission
hearing for April 13, 2009 will consider adoption of a revised and updated growth policy
as recommended from the Bozeman Planning Board.
The signature of the surrounding mountains on
Bozeman is an irreplaceable asset
212
The efforts of the Bozeman City Commission, The Bozeman Planning Board and the
City of Bozeman Planning Department to be proactive with the challenges of growth by
updating the Community Plan are appreciated. In addition, the efforts of the Gallatin
County Commission and the Gallatin County Planning Department to be proactive with
identifying sprawling development and working towards creative solutions to address it
are also appreciated. It is understood that the County’s Rural Zoning Program is now on
hold, but the pace of development has been brisk and it is healthy to stop, take a breath
and look at it from a more rested perspective while the economy goes through a
correction. The City of Bozeman has the same opportunity to take a breath too. As this
process continues to address the challenges related to the Growth Policy Update, the
impacts for certain areas will become a larger part of the public awareness. The areas of
concern outlined in the photo above are of the transitional area of the Bridger Mountains
to the urban fabric of the City of Bozeman. This combined with the City of Bozeman
Growth Policy Update map that follows are the focus of this letter.
The Bozeman City Commission hearing for April 13, 2009 will consider adoption of a
revised and updated Growth Policy as recommended from the Bozeman Planning
Board. We have expressed our concerns to the Bozeman Planning Board in letters and
in oral testimony at their hearings. Two letters to the Board dated 1/29/09 and 2/17/09
explain the issues of concern in detail. It would be appreciated if you would read them
because they detail the core elements of these issues. They will be attached to this
correspondence for reference. These same issues were delineated as early as 2005
when a development proposal and annexation request was made by Churn Creek
Partners to place 300 to 500 homes on 313 acres of the Bridger Bench and Foothills
above Bozeman.
As development within Gallatin County’s jurisdiction approaches the viewsheds and the
natural assets of the mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats surrounding the City of
Bozeman, the three dimensional aspects in the landform should be respected. These
lands form the viewsheds of Bozeman and should honor the space needed for wildlife
corridors that use these riparian habitats. Streams and creeks that feed the valley from
the mountains, canyons, draws, elevated planes and ridges surrounding the City of
Bozeman need to be maintained and not crowded into development projects. The City of
Bozeman Growth Policy Update has substantially increased the boundaries of the
“Future Urban” Land Use Designation to overlay these more sensitive areas of the
County. It comes with the anticipation that their future lies within annexation to the City of
Bozeman. The boundary and resulting development density of this “Future Urban” Land
Use Designation is found to be contradictory to the language in the Growth Policy
Update document……….a document that emphasizes protecting and maintaining these
natural amenities in a most sustainable way, yet stamps them with the “Future Urban”
Land Use Designation (which is delineated with the tan color in the map below).
213
214
The area of concern outlined in the map above is of the transitional area of the
surrounding mountains to the urban fabric of the City of Bozeman. The three
dimensional aspects of changes in the land that forms the viewsheds and the natural
assets of the mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats to the north and east
surrounding the City of Bozeman are easily identified in the aerial photo and the
delineated growth boundary below.
Aerial photo and Growth Boundary further encroaching into the mountains and foothills.
Bridger Range at Story Mill Road
215
Animal tracks in the snow at a residence on Whitetail Road
Whitetail herd and the Bridger Range at Story Mill Road
216
Here is the RESULTING REQUEST:
The City of Bozeman Planning Department, Planning Board and Commissioners along
with the Gallatin County Planning Department and Commissioners should agree that the
areas of concern outlined are worth the attention to reevaluate the growth objectives
being proposed.
1) Conservation open space should be at the forefront of the objectives for the outlined
areas of concern. Please remove the “Future Urban” Land Use Designation from the
sensitive areas outlined and delineate them with a low impact “Rural Residential Open
Space” Land Use Designation. Any development allowed should be in a manner
consistent with the lowest impact and lowest density possible. Only allow a maximum of
one dwelling unit per existing parcel (20 acre minimum) and only if their impacts can be
mitigated.
2) Make a request of Gallatin County to eliminate the ability for these specific areas to
receive “transferred development rights” (TDR’s) or clustered bonus densities if they
continue to move forward with their Rural Zoning Initiative.
3) The County’s lower impact rural standards are more natural and fit these areas better
than do the current City of Bozeman (R-S) suburban residential standards. Most of this
area currently in the county is at 1 unit per 20 acres while the least dense City of
Bozeman (R-S) suburban residential zone is at a rate of one unit per acre. The City of
Bozeman does not currently have a rural zoning standard, but should create one for
these areas. The reliance on the Ridgelines and Viewsheds ordinance will still not
remove the visual exposure of this infrastructure network of road patterns, newly
introduced landscape, street/night lighting patterns and any other development features
on the face of these slopes. The introduction of more urban infrastructure into a natural
environment as shown in the examples below would be considered physical scarring of
the land in full view of the valley and the City of Bozeman.
Crested Butte Colorado
217
Tucson and their urban expansion into the foothills
218
4) With the recent events of the downtown explosion and the challenges facing
downtown with a difficult economy, it reminds everyone as to how important a vibrant
downtown is to the City of Bozeman. All efforts should be made in the Growth Policy
Update to promote infill projects within the current City limits and allow higher density
incentives. Expanding the boundary of and offering further density incentives to the
Downtown Urban Renewal/Tax Increment District around the core of downtown would
help to stimulate a renewed interest in development there. Combining that with even
more economic incentives than currently exist (such as lower interest loans) has proven
in many cities to stimulate development within that zone and offset the typically higher
costs and longer schedules of building there. Filling in from the core of the city is far
more important than allowing the creation of another ring of easier development around
the outside of the existing city limits.
We seek an avenue to work with you in further shaping potential amendments to the City
of Bozeman’s Growth Policy Update and the County’s Rural Zoning initiative. It will take
a coordinated plan that preserves and protects the irreplaceable beauty of Bozeman's
singular natural environment long into the future. Using planning tools like the Bozeman
Community Plan is very valuable. However, the language within these documents and
the resulting zoning regulations need to stand up to the scrutiny of Land Use Attorneys
hired to fill the request of their developer clients.
We are asking our city leaders to be visionary and proactive in protecting the quality of
life and environment that makes Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley such an exceptional
place to live, work and recreate. A unique opportunity exists here in Bozeman to
conserve its open space around the city while emphasizing development from the core
within the City. A good place to start is to view the website video
http://www.thisisbozeman.com/bozeman-video/ . It is well done and illustrates the point
about why we live in Bozeman and what passion exists for our surrounding environment.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
________________
Steve Ziegler (Architect)
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0955
sziegler@san.rr.com
Below are other concerned residents that share the views outlined in this letter.
Larry and Rita Merkel
President of the Bridger Mountain Estates Home Owners Association
3148 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 587-1679
larry@churncreek.net
219
Chip Petrie and Patty Mckernan
3365 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 556-1261
cpetrie@ubalumni.com
mckernanpa@gmail.com
Ferd Johns
Beth Bridgers Johns
2355 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
bethbjohns@gmail.com
oldferdj@yahoo.com
Stacey Ziegler
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0954
slziegler@san.rr.com
Colonel Ron Stevens and Ilah Stevens
2745 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
ilahglee@littleappletech.com
Linda Henne
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
lhenne@imt.net
Bryon Dingman
8645 Lookfar Way
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 582-8755
bdizme@yahoo.com
Pat Martin
2771 Deer Creek
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 585-0177
pcmartin@montana.net
Mike Kvasnick
720 North Montana Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 589-2799
camprowdy@yahoo.com
220
Marilee and Gary Brown
2411 Kid Curry Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Ph: (406) 585-3700
2browndogs@earthlink.net
Mike Sand
1688 Star Ridge Rd.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 539-2995
Montanalaw@aol.com
John Christopher, Ph.D.
11830 Gee Norman Road
Belgrade, MT 59714
Home Office: (406) 581-6215
Fax: (406) 994-2013
jcc@montana.edu
Dr Mark Hodgson
Christine Hodgson
501 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 522-9460
crhodgson@yahoo.com
hodgemd@yahoo.com
John and Paula Kausal.
711 Surrey Lane
Glenview, IL 60025
kausboy@prodigy.net
Robert Brewster
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Sue Henning
2670 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
shenning@mcn.net
Betty Stroock
2504 Valhalla Court
Bozeman, MT. 59715
bstroock@gmail.com
Richard Wolff
420 Meadowlark Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59718
rwolff@montana.edu
221
Mike and Jennifer Kassity
696 Belle Creek Road
Belgrade, MT. 59714
kassitym@gmail.com
jk@mtmcd.com
Lisa & John Vanden Bos
2730 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 585-7926
lisa@fusac.org
john@fusac.org
Dr. Tony and Maribeth Goodman
2555 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
aagoodman@aol.com
Jamey and Mike McCormick
410 Churn Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
522-3890
michael.j.mccormick@ubs.com
jfmccormick@hotmail.com
Bob and Terry Petitt
2375 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 582-7425
rlpetitt@fedex.com
tpimt@aol.com
Glen Demaray
620 West Third Avenue
Three Forks, Mt 59752
yaarmed@yahoo.com
John Ripley
Owner Tract 6 N2 Sec 29
2709 Spring Pond Court
La Grange, KY 40031
john.ripley@insightbb.com
Sherri & Sam Nassar
3198 Sentinel Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715
samuelnassar@yahoo.com
222
Further reference:
http://www.bridgerfoothills.org/
http://www.thisisbozeman.com/bozeman-video/
Similar references:
http://www.savetheplateau.org/index2.html
http://www.eldoradomtn.org/backdrop/FriendsofFoothills2.pdf
http://www.foothillsfriends.com/
“How other Cities are approaching Green and Sustainability” type link. This one of
“Boulder Lifestyles and the Environment” is a good overview of the “Blue Line” of open
space.
http://www.bouldercoloradousa.com/static/index.cfm?contentID=79§ionid=4
“Leading the way in Green from Science to Sustainability”
http://www.bouldercoloradousa.com/docs/Leading%20the%20Way%20in%20Green%20
Guide.pdf
And the Green Zone from
http://boulderchamber.com/greenzone.aspx
Where this picture of Boulder is very comparable to one that you would see of Bozeman
with the Bridger’s in the background.
223
March 31, 2009
To:
County Administrator Earl Mathers
C/O
W. Randall Johnson, AICP
Manager Subdivision and Zoning
Gallatin County Planning Department
311 West Main RM 208
Bozeman, MT 59715
randy.johnson@gallatin.mt.gov
PH: (406) 582-3130
FX: (406) 582-3135
And
Sean O’Callaghan, CFM
Planner, Floodplain Administrator
Gallatin County Planning Department
311 West Main RM 208
Bozeman, MT 59715
Sean.ocallaghan@gallatin.mt.gov
PH: (406) 582-3130
FX: (406) 582-3135
And
Gallatin County Commissioners
Bill Murdock
Joe P. Skinner
Steve White
commission@gallatin.mt.gov
for distribution to the Commissioners
Glenda Howze, 406-582-3027
Crystal Turner, 406-582-3000
311 West Main, Room 306, Bozeman, MT 59715
PH: (406) 582-3000
FX: (406) 582-3003
RE: City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission
hearing for April 13, 2009 will consider adoption of a revised and updated growth policy
as recommended from the Bozeman Planning Board.
224
The signature of the surrounding mountains on
Bozeman is an irreplaceable asset
The efforts of the Gallatin County Commission and the Gallatin County Planning
Department to be proactive with identifying sprawling development and working towards
creative solutions to address it are appreciated. It is understood that the County’s Rural
Zoning Program is now on hold, but the pace of development has been brisk and it is
healthy to stop, take a breath and look at it from a more rested perspective while the
economy goes through a correction. As this process continues to address the challenges
related to the introduction of new zoning programs, the impacts for certain areas will
become a larger part of the public awareness. The areas of concern outlined in the
photo above are of the transitional area of the Bridger Mountains to the urban fabric of
the City of Bozeman. This combined with the City of Bozeman Growth Policy Update
map that follows are the focus of this letter.
The Bozeman City Commission hearing for April 13, 2009 will consider adoption of a
revised and updated Growth Policy as recommended from the Bozeman Planning
Board. We have expressed our concerns to the Bozeman Planning Board in letters and
in oral testimony at their hearings. Two letters to the Board dated 1/29/09 and 2/17/09
explain the issues of concern in detail. It would be appreciated if you would read them
because they detail the core elements of these issues. They will be attached to this
correspondence for reference. These same issues were delineated as early as 2005
when a development proposal and annexation request was made by Churn Creek
Partners to place 300 to 500 homes on 313 acres of the Bridger Bench and Foothills
above Bozeman.
As development within Gallatin County’s jurisdiction approaches the viewsheds and the
natural assets of the mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats surrounding the City of
Bozeman, the three dimensional aspects in the landform should be respected. These
lands form the viewsheds of Bozeman and should honor the space needed for wildlife
corridors that use these riparian habitats. Streams and creeks that feed the valley from
the mountains, canyons, draws, elevated planes and ridges surrounding the City of
Bozeman need to be maintained and not crowded into development projects. The City of
Bozeman Growth Policy Update has substantially increased the boundaries of the
“Future Urban” Land Use Designation to overlay these more sensitive areas of the
County. It comes with the anticipation that their future lies within annexation to the City of
Bozeman. The boundary and resulting development density of this “Future Urban” Land
Use Designation is found to be contradictory to the language in the Growth Policy
Update document……….a document that emphasizes protecting and maintaining these
225
natural amenities in a most sustainable way, yet stamps them with the “Future Urban”
Land Use Designation (which is delineated with the tan color in the map below).
226
The area of concern outlined in the map above is of the transitional area of the
surrounding mountains to the urban fabric of the City of Bozeman. The three
dimensional aspects of changes in the land that forms the viewsheds and the natural
assets of the mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats to the north and east
surrounding the City of Bozeman are easily identified in the aerial photo and the
delineated growth boundary below.
Aerial photo and Growth Boundary further encroaching into the mountains and foothills.
Bridger Range at Story Mill Road
227
Animal tracks in the snow at a residence on Whitetail Road
Whitetail herd and the Bridger Range at Story Mill Road
228
Here is the RESULTING REQUEST:
Gallatin County Planning Department and Commissioners along with the City of
Bozeman Planning Department and Commissioners should agree that that the areas of
concern outlined are worth the attention to reevaluate the growth objectives being
proposed. Conservation open space should be at the forefront of the objectives, but if
they are to be developed, then they should be developed in a manner consistent with the
lowest impact and lowest density possible (a maximum of one dwelling unit per existing
parcel). These areas should not be a candidate for receiving “transferred development
rights” (TDR’s) or clustered bonus densities. The County’s lower impact rural standards
fit these areas better than do the current City of Bozeman (R-S) suburban residential
standards. The City of Bozeman does not currently have a rural zoning standard. Visual
exposure of this infrastructure network of road patterns, newly introduced landscape,
street/night lighting patterns and any other development features on the face of these
slopes could be considered physical scarring of the land in full view of the valley and the
City of Bozeman. Like these examples below.
Crested Butte Colorado
229
Tucson and their urban expansion into the foothills
We seek an avenue to work with you in further shaping potential amendments to the
County’s Rural Zoning initiative and the City of Bozeman’s Growth Policy Update.
Using planning tools like the Bozeman Community Plan is a great start. However, the
language within these documents and the resulting zoning regulations needs to stand up
to the scrutiny of Land Use Attorneys hired to fill the request of their developer clients.
We are asking our County leaders to be visionary and proactive in protecting the quality
of life and environment that makes Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley such an exceptional
place to live, work and recreate. A unique opportunity exists here in Bozeman to
conserve its open space around the city while emphasizing development from the core
within the City. A good place to start is to view the website video
http://www.thisisbozeman.com/bozeman-video/ . It is well done and illustrates the point
about why we live in Bozeman and what passion exists for our surrounding environment.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
230
Sincerely,
________________
Steve Ziegler (Architect)
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0955
sziegler@san.rr.com
Below are other concerned residents that share the views outlined in this letter.
Larry and Rita Merkel
President of the Bridger Mountain Estates Home Owners Association
3148 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 587-1679
larry@churncreek.net
Chip Petrie and Patty Mckernan
3365 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 556-1261
cpetrie@ubalumni.com
mckernanpa@gmail.com
Ferd Johns
Beth Bridgers Johns
2355 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
bethbjohns@gmail.com
oldferdj@yahoo.com
Stacey Ziegler
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0954
slziegler@san.rr.com
Colonel Ron Stevens and Ilah Stevens
2745 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
ilahglee@littleappletech.com
Linda Henne
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
lhenne@imt.net
231
Bryon Dingman
8645 Lookfar Way
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 582-8755
bdizme@yahoo.com
Pat Martin
2771 Deer Creek
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 585-0177
pcmartin@montana.net
Mike Kvasnick
720 North Montana Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 589-2799
camprowdy@yahoo.com
Marilee and Gary Brown
2411 Kid Curry Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Ph: (406) 585-3700
2browndogs@earthlink.net
Mike Sand
1688 Star Ridge Rd.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 539-2995
Montanalaw@aol.com
John Christopher, Ph.D.
11830 Gee Norman Road
Belgrade, MT 59714
Home Office: (406) 581-6215
Fax: (406) 994-2013
jcc@montana.edu
Dr Mark Hodgson
Christine Hodgson
501 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 522-9460
crhodgson@yahoo.com
hodgemd@yahoo.com
John and Paula Kausal.
711 Surrey Lane
Glenview, IL 60025
kausboy@prodigy.net
Robert Brewster
232
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Sue Henning
2670 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
shenning@mcn.net
Betty Stroock
2504 Valhalla Court
Bozeman, MT. 59715
bstroock@gmail.com
Richard Wolff
420 Meadowlark Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59718
rwolff@montana.edu
Mike and Jennifer Kassity
696 Belle Creek Road
Belgrade, MT. 59714
kassitym@gmail.com
jk@mtmcd.com
Lisa & John Vanden Bos
2730 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 585-7926
lisa@fusac.org
john@fusac.org
Dr. Tony and Maribeth Goodman
2555 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
aagoodman@aol.com
Jamey and Mike McCormick
410 Churn Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
522-3890
michael.j.mccormick@ubs.com
jfmccormick@hotmail.com
Bob and Terry Petitt
2375 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 582-7425
rlpetitt@fedex.com
tpimt@aol.com
Glen Demaray
233
620 West Third Avenue
Three Forks, Mt 59752
yaarmed@yahoo.com
John Ripley
Owner Tract 6 N2 Sec 29
2709 Spring Pond Court
La Grange, KY 40031
john.ripley@insightbb.com
Sherri & Sam Nassar
3198 Sentinel Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715
samuelnassar@yahoo.com
Further reference:
234
http://www.bridgerfoothills.org/
http://www.thisisbozeman.com/bozeman-video/
Similar references:
http://www.savetheplateau.org/index2.html
http://www.eldoradomtn.org/backdrop/FriendsofFoothills2.pdf
http://www.foothillsfriends.com/
“How other Cities are approaching Green and Sustainability”. This one of “Boulder
Lifestyles and the Environment” is a good overview of the “Blue Line” of open space.
http://www.bouldercoloradousa.com/static/index.cfm?contentID=79§ionid=4
“Leading the way in Green from Science to Sustainability”
http://www.bouldercoloradousa.com/docs/Leading%20the%20Way%20in%20Green%20
Guide.pdf
And the “Green Zone” from
http://boulderchamber.com/greenzone.aspx
where this picture of Boulder is very comparable to one that you would see of Bozeman
with the Bridger’s in the background.
235
1
Chris Saunders
From:Steve Ziegler [sziegler@san.rr.com]
Sent:Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:07 AM
To:Stacy Ulmen; Kaaren Jacobson; Jeff Krauss; Jeff Rupp; Sean Becker; Eric Bryson; Planning;
Andy Epple; Chris Saunders
Subject:RE: City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission hearing for
April 13, 2009. Part 2
Attachments:1.29.09 Growth Policy Response.doc; 2.17.09 Follow up to Growth Policy Response.doc
Part 2
We have expressed our concerns to the Bozeman Planning Board in letters and in oral testimony at their
hearings. Two letters to the Board dated 1/29/09 and 2/17/09 explain the issues of concern in detail. There are
attached as outlined in the Part 1 e-mail below. It would be appreciated if you would read them because they
detail the core elements of these issues.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
Steve Ziegler
sziegler@san.rr.com
Cell Ph (BEST #) (406) 599-0955
Home Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
If there any questions with this message, then please do not hesitate to respond.
From: Steve Ziegler [mailto:sziegler@san.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:43 AM
To: 'sulmen@bozeman.net'; 'kjacobson@bozeman.net'; 'jkrauss@bozeman.net'; 'jrupp@bozeman.net';
'sbecker@bozeman.net'; 'ebryson@bozeman.net'; 'planning@bozeman.net'; 'aepple@bozeman.net';
'csaunders@bozeman.net'
Subject: City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission hearing for April 13, 2009. Part 1
To:
Bozeman City Commission
c/o City Clerk Stacey Ulman
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Email: sulmen@bozeman.net
Please distribute this correspondence to the Bozeman City Commission Members for the Hearing on April 13,
2009.
Mayor Kaaren Jacobson 587-5968 kjacobson@bozeman.net
Deputy Mayor/ Commissioner Jeff Krauss 582-2341 jkrauss@bozeman.net
Commissioner Jeff Rupp 586-1380 jrupp@bozeman.net
Commissioner Sean Becker 581-7571 sbecker@bozeman.net
Commissioner Eric Bryson 582-2347 ebryson@bozeman.net
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Or PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: (406) 582-2260
Fax: (406) 582-2263
236
2
planning@bozeman.net
Attn: Planning Director - Andy Epple AICP
aepple@bozeman.net
Assistant Director - Chris Saunders AICP
csaunders@bozeman.net
.
RE: City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. The Bozeman City Commission hearing for April 13, 2009
will consider adoption of a revised and updated growth policy as recommended from the Bozeman Planning
Board.
Please find attached a letter of concerns regarding the City of Bozeman Growth Policy Plan Update. We
realize that this is both a City of Bozeman issue as well as a Gallatin County Issue. A similar letter has been
sent to the Gallatin County Commissioners and Planning Department (also attached). The previous letters sent
to the Bozeman Planning Board through their process will be forwarded via separate e-mail for your reference.
We are asking our city leaders to be visionary and proactive in protecting the quality of life and environment
that makes Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley such an exceptional place to live, work and recreate.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
Steve Ziegler
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
sziegler@san.rr.com
Cell Ph (BEST #) (406) 599-0955
Home Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
If there any questions with this message, then please do not hesitate to respond.
237
January 29, 2009
(Updated with current signatures)
To:
City of Bozeman Planning Board Members:
Erik Henyon
Brian Caldwell
Edward Szczypinski
Dawn Smith
Cathy Costakis
Donna Swarthout
Chris Mehl
William Quinn
Cr. Sean Becker sbecker@bozeman.net 581-7571
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Or PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: (406) 582-2260
Fax: (406) 582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
Attn: Planning Director - Andy Epple AICP
aepple@bozeman.net
Assistant Director - Chris Saunders AICP
csaunders@bozeman.net
Please distribute this correspondence to the City of Bozeman Planning Board
Members for the Hearing on February 3, 2009 Copies sent by e-mail to Andy
Epple, Chris Saunders and Sean Becker. Hardcopy delivered to 20 East Olive
Street as well.
RE: Response to the Draft Growth Policy Update Public Hearing Process
238
I attended the Public Hearing of CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD for the
Draft Growth Policy (otherwise known as the 2020 plan) on January 21, 2009. I
asked the Planning Board the following questions from the information provided
on the Bozeman.Net website:
The area that I live in has now been designated as “Future Urban”. Please help
me understand how the boundaries of this Future Urban designation were
derived? This Future Urban area is outside the city limits yet within the county
area often referred to as the “donut property” and the “Bridger Bench”. How does
the County Commission’s efforts to use the “Transfer of Development Rights”
(TDR’s) to densify receiver sites (i.e. into the Donut Property/ Bridger Bench)
relate to this document’s language? Is there any coordination there? A range of
concerns with development in these areas were outlined in the public hearing
processes associated with the previous annexation attempts by developers at the
base of the Bridger Mountains. What is the City of Bozeman’s Planning Board
and City Commission’s current stance regarding annexation in this document? Is
it encouraged or discouraged? I would encourage the plan to promote infill
density to the city centre in efforts to augment the development of a vibrant,
active, walkable, mixed use, livable city environment. I would discourage the plan
to allow the creation of a dense county ring infringing on the natural assets
around the city. There was a brief explanation given to these questions at that
same hearing on January 21, 2009.
As a follow up to that meeting, this letter will serve to make a request to introduce
the following concepts into the plan at this stage of the process:
1) The outer boundary of the last 2020 Plan (dated 10/11/01) has now been
moved out to further encompass yet more area in this latest Growth Policy Map
as well as overlay the area where I live. The lines appear to be drawn as a larger
ring around the city limits on a two dimensional map. The boundary of the “Future
Urban” Land Use Designation now attempts to overlay even more areas that
would fall into what we believe are the more sensitive viewsheds and the natural
assets of the mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats surrounding the City of
Bozeman. These areas are three dimensional and need to be evaluated as such.
They have been here for their lifetime and should continue to be preserved with a
heavy hand for the balance of their lifetime. The press, the internet and TV media
continues to echo that Bozeman has a unique setting. The city is surrounded by
and embraced by the natural assets of the mountains, streams, creeks and
wildlife affording an outdoor experience desired by many, yet available to so few
cities in the United States.
239
240
The goals of the Growth Policy Update reinforce the importance of the
sustainability of these unique natural assets beginning with its Executive
Summary Community Plan and following throughout the remainder of the text.
Here are a few examples from the current Growth Policy update:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers – Focal points for the community.
Neighborhoods – Small town within a city.
Sense of Place – We know where we are and why.
Natural Amenities – Rivers, and trails, and skiing, oh my!
Urban Density – Good things come in compact packages.
Integration of Action – Keeping both hands working to the same purpose.
Sustainability – Thinking of the future in today’s actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughtful, caring, committed, dynamic, leader – Bozeman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located in the beautiful northern Rocky Mountains, Bozeman matches its beautiful setting
with great access to world class outdoor recreation. A thriving arts community matches the
strong small business climate. Bozeman is regularly featured in Top 10 lists for great
communities from many publications and viewpoints. As the home of Montana State
University, Bozeman provides a rich pool of talent and opportunities to grow a business,
widen your horizons, and raise a family.
Bozeman is committed to maintaining its quality environment and community character so
that it may be enjoyed for many years to come.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A community must therefore determine how it wishes to address change: by ignoring change
and losing any ability to shape it, or by trying to look forward and ensure that as change
occurs the things that the community values most are able to remain and thrive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bozeman’s Strengths
In the 1999 Community Characteristic & Opinion Survey the following were identified as
Bozeman’s strengths:
· Access to outdoor amenities & recreation
· Natural environment
· Low crime rate
· Montana State University
· Attractiveness of the City
The City’s planning for land uses is focused on these principles: • Neighborhoods. • Sense of
Place • Natural Amenities. • Centers • Integration of Action. • Urban Density. •
Sustainability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Amenities. Bozeman is located in a beautiful natural environment. The natural
amenities surrounding Bozeman are a significant component of the high quality of life and
support the economy. As Bozeman changes and grows, opportunities to carefully integrate
development with natural features such as streams arise. Ensuring that development is
responsive to the natural amenities will help to keep Bozeman beautiful and vibrant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
241
The signature of the surrounding mountains on
Bozeman is an irreplaceable asset
242
243
The viewshed appeared to receive the most number of comments when the line
of people opposed the proposed development on the Bridger Bench. If one looks
at the majority of pictures and videos published about Bozeman they tend to
show the city with an emphasis on the surrounding mountains as the
background. These assets are further reinforced with the Chamber of Commerce
photos, the MSU advertisements, the businesses of tourism and outdoor sports.
Here is a link to a website called “This is Bozeman”. One should view their video
images as they outline what attracts people, tourism and business to Bozeman.
http://www.thisisbozeman.com/bozeman-video/
In addition to the site specific physical challenges of development and growth,
there are a number of inherent assets that are larger than all of us. The images
that represent Bozeman as a desirable place to live, work, play and visit are
framed by features that have been here longer than any of us. From the way that
the Bridger Mountains embrace Bozeman and the valley, to the way that they
feed water to the streams with the weather that they catch. That water supply
sustains both human life and wildlife on many levels. The whole system is an
irreplaceable asset. The interaction with the Montana “M”, the Bozeman “B” with
the trail system emphasizes wildlife and nature without built environment. They
all need to have room to breathe and exist without crowding, both physically and
visually.
The visual presence of the surrounding mountains is dominant from downtown
Bozeman and the areas to the west, the freeway and Belgrade. The mountains
are relatively free of dense development. They should be kept that way. If you
look at the development at the base of the Bridger’s thus far, the physical
topography of the base of the Bridger’s watershed changes from the north to the
244
south. In the north, the Sype’s Canyon area, Grandview 1 and 2 were developed
on topography that has a bench with a number of houses that are in plain view of
the valley, but the area is also full of knolls and valleys (nooks and crannies),
which have a tendency to visually mask the development and the variety of
architecture. As you proceed south towards Bridger Canyon Road, the
topography tends to be less of a bench and actually slopes in such a way as to
present its face to Bozeman and the valley. Any development on these slope
faces would have a greater degree of visual exposure. That exposure would
include architecture and the infrastructure of road patterns; introduced
landscape, street/night lighting patterns and any other development features on
the face of this slope (see the example picture from Crested Butte, Colorado).
Careful consideration should be given for establishing precedents that will be
difficult to change as development of the surrounding properties occurs.
A range of concerns with development in these areas were outlined in the public
hearing processes associated with the previous annexation attempts by
developers at the base of the Bridger Mountains (Churn Creek Partners). The
area marked in red/black in the following four pictures show what impact a single
project can impose on the viewshed of the City of Bozeman.
245
We should continue to learn from the challenges facing other Rocky Mountain
Cities. Cities such as Boulder Colorado have continued to emphasize the
requirement to allow the surrounding mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife
habitats to remain free of encroachment. A book to reference is Sustaining Rocky
Mountain Landscapes; Science, Policy, and Management for the Crown of the
Continent Ecosystem (here is a link
http://www.rff.org/rff_press/custombookpages/pages/SustainingRockyMountainL
andscapes.aspx). Examples in Crested Butte and Aspen Colorado have been
criticized for not successfully handling those challenges. Tucson and their urban
sprawl in the foothills is a good example of what to avoid.
There is a group called Transition Boulder (http://transitionboulder.org/) that is
attempting to organize the aspects of their sustainable growth. Their website
features “Sustainability 101” whereby Prof Al Bartlett uses simple arithmetic to
spell out how energy consumption growth driven by population growth is
unsustainable. It can be viewed on the internet in eight parts. Here is a link to
part three and the other seven parts will show up there too
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG_PL-dRMA0&feature=related). Boulder also
has their GreenZone and ClimateSmart programs in play
(http://www.beclimatesmart.com/).
Boulder, Colorado 1991 Boulder, Colorado 2008
246
Crested Butte Colorado Aspen, Colorado
Tucson and their urban expansion into the foothills
247
Wildlife corridors
The residents of Bridger Mountain Estates and the surrounding developments
have a daily exposure to wildlife activity. Bridger Mountain Estates is a low
density development on the Bridger foothills that currently has 8 homes on 20 to
40 acre parcels. In just our general area there is a significant whitetail and mule
deer population that can be seen daily in various groups in a variety of locations
from the Bridger’s down to all around Story Mill Road. As one drives the area
especially at dawn and dusk, their patterns emerge. The numbers and activity
further increase during the fall rut and the birthing of spring fawns. The main
wildlife routes are around and along the edges of Churn Creek, Deer Creek,
Bridger Creek, Lyman Creek the East Gallatin River and the other draws from the
Bridger’s to the landfill and Bridger Creek Golf Course. The black bears, the
mountain lions, bobcats, foxes, skunks, badgers, pheasants, grouse, eagles, red
tailed hawks (and many other birds) are present here on a regular basis along
with elk and moose. Development density has an impact on these wildlife
patterns. Low impact sensitive development with ample natural open space will
be a challenge to achieve if given development standards that are allowed to
seek urban residential densities. The topography alone will lower density if smart
concepts of no ridgeline development and no wildlife corridor development are
adhered to. Careful consideration should be given to these patterns before a
blanket “Future Urban” Land Use Designation is utilized.
Residence at Bridger Mountain Estates
Mule deer on Whitetail Road
248
+50 Elk above Deer Creek Drive
Elk above Deer Creek Drive
Whitetail Deer on Whitetail Road
249
2 Moose on Deer Creek Drive
Mountain Lion on Deer Creek Drive
Wild Turkeys on Deer Creek Road
250
Whitetail Deer on Whitetail Road
Bear on Deer Creek Road
251
Bear on Deer Creek Road
Red Fox on Whitetail Road Whitetail Deer on Whitetail Road
252
Golden Eagle on Deer Creek Road Bobcat at Whitetail Road
Traffic and road infrastructure
Development in these areas will generate additional residents and therefore
additional vehicles and trip traffic. Streets, utilities and Infrastructure
improvements will be needed for the development areas. The developer would
typically pay for these improvements, however, they all cost money and they
would need a sufficient density and /or upscale quality of residential dwelling
units in order to obtain a return on that investment. Traffic quantities should be
studied for the adjoining development potential of the entire area and its impacts
should be considered on the full length of Story Mill Road, the intersection of
Bridger Canyon Road and continuing onto both the back way into town to Main
Street as well as on Rouse into Main Street. As we know from the past
construction of utility work on Rouse, this area and the detour were extremely
congested with the current levels of traffic. If Suburban Residential type densities
are allowed, then the amount of additional vehicles using this infrastructure will
be significant. The intersections now perform at “C” levels of service or lower at
current development levels.
253
There can be large amounts of snow accumulation in these areas. Consideration
should be given to limiting the amounts of impervious surfaces, thus encouraging
water percolation in lieu of rapid run off and the flooding that we saw this last
year in developments allowed to be built too close to streams and creeks.
Bozeman flooding May 27, 2008
Visual exposure of this infrastructure network of road patterns, newly introduced
landscape, street/night lighting patterns and any other development features on
the face of these slopes could be considered physical scarring of the land in full
view of the valley and the City of Bozeman. Like this example below.
Crested Butte Colorado
Sustainability of Water Resources
Bridger Mountain Estates where I reside along with 31 other
landowners/residents on 27 parcels of 20 to 40 acre plus, are all served by
individual wells. Bridger Mountain Estates is a development whose density is
governed by a Subdivision Agreement and further enforced by the Declaration of
Protective Covenants and Restrictions that run with the land title. It is a rural
development with one dwelling unit per each 20-acre parcel. It is a low impact
development that leaves more land in a natural state respecting wildlife patterns,
view sheds, natural resources and exhibits a conservative use of the limited
availability of water. Its low density of development helps to not put significant
254
pressure on the aquifer that feeds the wells as Bozeman moves in and out of
drought status. Irrigation demands for landscaping are small in comparison to the
amount of land left in a natural non-irrigated state. It has limited amounts of
impervious surfaces encouraging water percolation in lieu of rapid run off as is
seen in other more dense developments with significant roof areas along with
paved driveways, streets and walks. Access to well water will be a significant
challenge given the geography of the alluvial fans and their influence on the
aquifer at the base of the mountains. It will in turn limit density of these areas on
its own accord.
Existing Density
If you look at an aerial photo, visit the records room and look at the GIS map,
they all tell a story of low impact development at the base of the Bridger
Mountains. Please make this comparison by counting up all of the
lots/residences on the bench area at the base of the Bridger Mountains. Start by
taking everything east of Story Mill road to the base of the Bridger Mountains.
Story Mill lies on a mapping section line, so it is easy to project it from Bridger
Creek to the north for a few miles. Starting to the south at Brass Lantern (6) and
work northward….the Rughiemers (2), the Dodges (3), Churn Creek (10), Bridger
Mountain Estates(28), Grandview I (57) and Grandview II (56), Sypes Canyon
(27),Scully’s Gully (12) and the other odds and ends, they total approximately
200 lots/residences. The site area that these units occupy is described by
Township 1 South 6 East sections 8, 9, 17, 20, 21, 28 and 29. It is 7 square miles
(4480 acres). This is the type of low impact development that does not pressure
non-renewable assets like The Bridger Mountain Range. We are already seeing
what is happening with crowding natural assets like the East Gallatin River and
Bridger Creek with higher density developments.
The Suburban Residential zoning classification may be the least dense of the
City’s alternatives; however it is still not appropriate for a low impact site. With
annexation, the city generates a new source of income in terms of a tax base,
cash in lieu of water rights, impact fees, sells water, sewer and city services and
gains new voters. The people that live in this area would like the Planning Board
and the Commissioners to look at these boundaries in a different light than just a
financial arrangement. The Planning Board and the Commissioners are
appointed and elected to be the shepherds of responsible growth and seek to
preserve non-renewable assets that are important to Bozeman… like the Bridger
Mountains. There are too many examples of cities under the pressures of rapid
growth that give up their best assets too quickly.
255
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RESULTING REQUEST
Please alter the boundary of the “Future Urban” land use designation by reducing
it as development approaches the viewsheds and the natural assets of the
mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats surrounding the City of Bozeman.
The new boundary reductions would be achieved by honoring the three
dimensional aspects of changes in the landform, thus respecting elevated planes
and ridges in the viewsheds of Bozeman. The new boundary reductions would be
achieved by honoring the wildlife corridors that use these riparian habitats of
streams and creeks that feed the valley from the mountains, canyons, draws and
elevated planes surrounding the City of Bozeman. This in affect would reduce the
boundary of the “Future Urban” Land Use designation but in effect makes room
to add another designation of even lesser density. Something like a “Rural
Residential” Land Use designation with one dwelling unit per 20 to 40 acres or
more and/or a “Conservation-Open Space Buffer” Land Use designation that
would even further limit development. A very limited density designation in
unique environments has proven to make land both desirable and valuable to
those that seek out the benefits of more secluded living, so close to a vibrant city.
This would not only send a positive message to those that are concerned about
these areas, it would send a message to the County to respect the same in their
zoning/land use updates.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
As a thought for consideration:
If one takes a page from the county’s Transfer of Development Rights” (TDR’s)
program, then these more sensitive areas could be viewed as “sending sites” for
TDR’s in lieu of “receiving sites”. If the City would add a “Redevelopment District”
overlay to the portion of the city that needed the most infill improvement and
density increases, then this “Redevelopment District” area could be treated as a
“receiving site” obtaining Tax credits, increased density allowances or business
credits. Redevelopment districts have turned the not so desirable areas of Cities
like San Diego into the thriving vibrant new heartbeat areas of the
Gaslamp/Horton Plaza districts with incentives like tax credits, increased density
allowances or business credits. There are many similar stories throughout the
major and growing cities of the world.
256
Sincerely,
________________
Steve Ziegler (Architect)
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0955
sziegler@san.rr.com
Below are other concerned residents that share the views outlined in this letter.
Larry and Rita Merkel
President of the Bridger Mountain Estates Home Owners Association
3148 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 587-1679
larry@churncreek.net
Chip Petrie and Patty Mckernan
3365 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 556-1261
cpetrie@ubalumni.com
mckernanpa@gmail.com
Ferd Johns
Beth Bridgers Johns
2355 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
bethbjohns@gmail.com
oldferdj@yahoo.com
Stacey Ziegler
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0954
slziegler@san.rr.com
257
Colonel Ron Stevens and Ilah Stevens
2745 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
ilahglee@littleappletech.com
Linda Henne
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
lhenne@imt.net
Bryon Dingman
8645 Lookfar Way
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 582-8755
bdizme@yahoo.com
Pat Martin
2771 Deer Creek
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 585-0177
pcmartin@montana.net
Mike Kvasnick
720 North Montana Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 589-2799
camprowdy@yahoo.com
Marilee and Gary Brown
2411 Kid Curry Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Ph: (406) 585-3700
2browndogs@earthlink.net
Mike Sand
1688 Star Ridge Rd.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 539-2995
Montanalaw@aol.com
John Christopher, Ph.D.
11830 Gee Norman Road
Belgrade, MT 59714
Home Office: (406) 581-6215
Fax: (406) 994-2013
jcc@montana.edu
258
Dr Mark Hodgson
Christine Hodgson
501 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 522-9460
crhodgson@yahoo.com
hodgemd@yahoo.com
John and Paula Kausal.
711 Surrey Lane
Glenview, IL 60025
kausboy@prodigy.net
Robert Brewster
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Sue Henning
2670 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
shenning@mcn.net
Betty Stroock
2504 Valhalla Court
Bozeman, MT. 59715
bstroock@gmail.com
Richard Wolff
420 Meadowlark Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59718
rwolff@montana.edu
Mike and Jennifer Kassity
696 Belle Creek Road
Belgrade, MT. 59714
kassitym@gmail.com
jkassity@earthlink.net
Lisa & John Vanden Bos
2730 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 585-7926
lisa@fusac.org
john@fusac.org
259
Dr. Tony and Maribeth Goodman
2555 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
aagoodman@aol.com
Jamey and Mike McCormick
410 Churn Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
522-3890
michael.j.mccormick@ubs.com
jfmccormick@hotmail.com
Bob and Kerry Petitt
2375 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 582-7425
rlpetitt@fedex.com
tpimt@aol.com
Glen Demaray
620 West Third Avenue
Three Forks, Mt 59752
yaarmed@yahoo.com
John Ripley
Owner Tract 6 N2 Sec 29
2709 Spring Pond Court
La Grange, KY 40031
john.ripley@insightbb.com
Sherri & Sam Nassar
3198 Sentinel Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715
samuelnassar@yahoo.com
Here are some links to a few resources.
http://www.rff.org/rff_press/custombookpages/pages/SustainingRockyMountainLandsca
pes.aspx
http://taos-telecommunity.org/EPOW/EPOW-Archive/archive_2007/EPOW-070416.htm
http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/media/pdf/SWChapter4.pdf
Here is a link to the Growth Policy Map:
http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/planning/Growth%20policy%20update/Figure%203%
20-%20Growth_Policy_Draft_Edits%2012-15-2008.pdf
260
Here is a link to the Land Use Draft.
http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/planning/Growth%20policy%20update/Chapter%203
%20Land%20Use%20Draft%204.pdf
Just an FYI……This is Big Sky from the airplane…………….
261
February 17, 2009
(Updated with current signatures)
To:
City of Bozeman Planning Board Members:
Erik Henyon
Brian Caldwell
Edward Szczypinski
Dawn Smith
Cathy Costakis
Donna Swarthout
Chris Mehl
William Quinn
Cr. Sean Becker sbecker@bozeman.net 581-7571
Department of Planning and Community Development
20 East Olive Street
Or PO Box 1230
Bozeman MT 59715
Phone: (406) 582-2260
Fax: (406) 582-2263
planning@bozeman.net
Attn: Planning Director - Andy Epple AICP
aepple@bozeman.net
Assistant Director - Chris Saunders AICP
csaunders@bozeman.net
Please distribute this correspondence to the City of Bozeman Planning Board
Members as a follow up to the January 21 and February 3, 2009 hearings,
Copies sent by e-mail to Andy Epple, Chris Saunders, Sean Becker and to the
Planning Board members as distributed via Stacy Ulmen (sulmen@bozeman.net)
RE: Follow up to the Public Testimony given at the January 21 and February 3,
2009 hearings for the Draft Growth Policy Update Public Hearing Process and
the letter dated 1/29/09 as submitted to the Bozeman Planning Board on 2/2/09.
262
I attended the Public Hearing of the CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD for
the Draft Growth Policy (otherwise known as the 2020 plan) on January 21and
February 3, 2009. I submitted written testimony and followed with public
comment. It was appreciated that you held the public comment open for two
opportunities for interaction. I am always amazed that the results of these
processes affect so many, yet there are so very few people that are willing to
show up to express their views in efforts to help shape their community.
With some of the statements made and issues raised, it appears that it would
have been very productive to have an open conversation about the concerns that
were presented and I hope that one day that can be achieved. But since the
process consists of opening public comment for submitted testimony, then
closing it to give the opportunity for the board members to address what they
heard, the only way to follow up is with the letter that follows.
The work the City of Bozeman Planning Board is doing to update the Growth
Plan is appreciated and well needed. The request to update the 2020 Plan came
about back in 2005 when the Churn Creek Development attempted to obtain
approvals for a Growth Policy Amendment, a Zone Map Amendment, A Sub Area
Plan and an Annexation in attempts to place 300 to 500 homes on 313 acres on
the Bridger bench. The public opposition to that project was deep. It caused a
rally of those concerned to express that the foothills around Bozeman be spared
from the levels of urban development that have compromised the quality of
natural environments of other similar growing cities. The concerns expressed in
written and public testimony, newspaper articles, ads, editorials and television
media through that process were requested to be incorporated into an update to
the 2020 Plan. Commissioner Kirchhoff made requests to update the 2020 Plan
stating that Bozeman has already grown past the vision of the document. The
requests outlined in these letters are not new. They were requested in written
testimony as early as letters dated July 29, 2005 as submitted to the Bozeman
Planning Board and continued through the City Commission as the issues
outlined herein followed from there.
There are 13 land use designations on the proposed Growth Policy Plan update.
The largest area is identified as Future Urban. The technique to develop this area
was described by City Planner Chris Saunders. He stated that after population
projections were established for the life of this proposed plan, then an expanded
“Future Urban” area was established at densities that would sustain that
population projection. These areas would be considered to be within reach of the
service area of the City of Bozeman over the life of this plan. A developers
request for development through annexation could not be denied.
263
Urban: (adj) (relating to or concerned with a city or densely populated area)
Urban: The "urban" category includes those areas classified as being urbanized
(having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and a total
population of at least 50,000) as well as cities, villages, boroughs (except in
Alaska and New York), towns (except in the six New England States, New York,
and Wisconsin), and other designated census areas having 2,500 or more
persons.
A “Future Urban” Land Use Designation has both a definition of density and a
public perception of density. It is a term that should be reconsidered in the
Growth Policy Update. One term or “one size does not fit all”. There are other
appropriate land uses within this Future Urban overlay like that of Agriculture and
Rural Residential in sensitive habitat areas that should be considered part of
Conservation-Open Space Buffers. These can very well be Land Use
Designations that would even further define the appropriate limits of
development. The very generalized examples of annexation on page C-12 of the
Bozeman Community Plan Update offer a comparison of the rural acreage saved
through the utilization of urban densities (urban densities of 6 residential units per
acre as compared to 1 residential unit per 5 rural acres). The basic meaning of
the example is understood, however when considering using these comparisons
on what is believed the more sensitive, unique areas surrounding the city, they
are still far too dense. “Low impact” should be a term used in lieu of “sprawl”.
Currently, the City of Bozeman does not have a rural residential zoning category.
The least dense residential category is the R-S Suburban Residential category
which yields 1 residence per acre and requires all of the same infrastructure as
that of a project within the city fabric. It can be easily seen by the examples
outlined in my previous letter of 1/29/2009 that this infrastructure can be more of
a scar to these areas than an asset. As development approaches the viewsheds
and the natural assets of the mountains/foothills/wetlands/wildlife habitats
surrounding the City of Bozeman, the three dimensional aspects of changes in
the landform should be respected. These landforms in the viewsheds of
Bozeman would honor the wildlife corridors that use these riparian habitats of
streams and creeks that feed the valley from the mountains, canyons, draws,
elevated planes and ridges surrounding the City of Bozeman. A rural residential
zoning category with more natural and sustainable infrastructure would need to
be incorporated into the zoning regulations in order to develop within these
areas. Progressive growing cities that have unique environments are
implementing an Urban Growth Boundary:
(UGB): A line drawn around a metropolitan area, designating the limits of
allowable growth. Land outside the boundary is protected from new
development.
264
Several comments made by the Board at the hearing were that by labeling an
area as “Future Urban”, it was not actually “Zoning” that area. To address this,
here is an excerpt from page 3-15 of the Bozeman Community Plan Update.
The land shown with a Future Urban designation is comprised of parcels
in a variety of different sizes, but typically in larger acreages. Suburban or
rural density subdivisions adjacent to the City may impede an orderly and
cost effective expansion of the City. In order to prevent such conflicts and
problems in the future, use of land in the Future Urban land use
designation should follow one of three paths, which are listed in order of
the City’s preference:
1. Remain as currently utilized, until annexed and municipal services are
available to support a Residential or other urban land use category
development as described in this plan. The change in designation will
require an amendment to the growth policy;
2. Develop at a density of a single dwelling per existing parcel, with
consolidation of smaller parcels into single ownership prior to
development; or
3. If further subdivision is proposed, to develop at urban densities and
standards with provisions for connection to City services when they
become available.
Planner Chris Saunders outlined a development scenario in the hearing. A
developer could request to develop a residential project within the boundaries of
the Future Urban Land Use Designation. A Residential Land Use would be found
to be in conformance to the Bozeman Community Plan. Consent to Annexation
would be found to be in conformance if the developer agreed to fund the
extension of City Service infrastructure to that project. A Zone Map Amendment
would be required next. The least dense Residential Zoning tool is R-S Suburban
Residential. The R-S Suburban Residential category yields 1 residence per acre
and requires all of the same infrastructure as that of a project within the city
fabric. This is an example of De-facto zoning. Case in point is illustrated by the
Churn Creek Development Partners Project noted above. The steps of its actual
process are outlined below in these excerpts of the public record.
1) The Churn Creek Development Growth Policy Amendment File No. #P-05020
was heard at the Bozeman Planning Board meeting on July 19, 2005 and was
heard again at the Bozeman City Commission on August 1, 2005.
2) This was followed by a Zone Map Amendment Application #Z-05247 to
establish an initial municipal zoning designation of R-S (Residential Suburban)
on 313.95 acres of land located on the east side of Story Mill Road approximately
2,000 feet north of the intersection of McIlhattan Road and directly east of the
City of Bozeman Landfill to the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman. It was
265
heard before the Bozeman Zoning Commission November 15, 2005 and before
the Bozeman City Commission on December 5, 2005.
http://bozemanmt.virtualtownhall.net/BozemanMT_commission/I00764C0C
3) Annexation Application #A-05011 requesting to annex 313.95 acres of land
located on the east side of Story Mill Road approximately 2,000 feet north of
the intersection of McIlhattan Road and directly east of the City of
Bozeman Landfill to the corporate limits of the City of Bozeman.
Acknowledge receipt of Staff Report and adopt Resolution of Intent to
Annex on Monday, November 7, 2005 and tentatively schedule
the public hearing for Monday, December 5, 2005.
http://bozemanmt.virtualtownhall.net/BozemanMT_commission/I00729744
http://bozemanmt.virtualtownhall.net/BozemanMT_commission/I007828AA
4) Request for Extension – Churn Creek Annexation Preliminary Approval
MEETING DATE: November 27, 2006
BACKGROUND: Mr. Barry Brown of Churn Creek Partners, and Mr. Brian
Gallick, representing Churn Creek Partners, have requested approval from the
City Commission for an extension to their Preliminary Annexation Approval,
which was granted on December 19, 2005. Preliminary approval was granted for
one year, until December 19, 2007. A term of annexation was that Churn Creek
Partners prepare and gain approval for a “Sub Area Plan” prior to Final Approval
of their annexation. The Sub Area Plan they presented last February was not
approved by the Commission, placing the status of the annexation on hold
(please refer to Commission Agenda Meeting Minutes of February 21, 2006, on-
line, for a record of the proceedings).
http://www.bozeman.net/WebLink7/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=32505
http://bozemanmt.virtualtownhall.net/BozemanMT_commission/I008383ED
Here is an excerpt from the Bozeman Chronicle after the hearing.
What does Churn Creek signal for new commission?
By CAMDEN EASTERLING Chronicle Staff Writer
New commissioners Jeff Rupp and Kaaren Jacobson joined
Commissioner Steve Kirchhoff in voting not to approve the subdivision
because they felt it was too dense.
Rupp and Jacobson also questioned whether the foothills should be
developed at all.
Kirchhoff, who previously voted to approve aspects of the Churn Creek
project, said he had a change of heart on development in that area and in
the city as a whole.
"I don't think we're managing the show," he said of growth. "I think the
show's managing us."
266
Please note for that project, each of the steps brought forward to the Planning
Board and City Commission were done with meeting staff’s approval of the
regulations. The Community contested the project at every hearing. The
Community filled the room at the hearing on 2/21/06 and the project finally failed
a vote to move forward when the Community contested the “Sub Area Plan” and
the subjectivity of the “ridgeline ordinance” in the rolling foothills at the City
Commission Hearing. The developer was given one year to develop an
acceptable Sub Area Plan in order to comply with the terms of the Annexation.
The developer did not pursue further plans and threatened Legal Action against
the City.
This scenario can still happen today and can be found to be in conformance with
the language currently proposed as written in the Growth Plan Update and the
Zoning regulations currently in place. It should also be noted that the
requirements for providing a Sub Area Plan have now been removed with the
update per the Board’s statements on 2/3/09. It can be seen that the change in
Land Use Designations in the overlay like that of Agriculture and Rural
Residential in sensitive habitat areas should be added to help form Conservation-
Open Space Buffers in what we believe are more sensitive habitats as outlined in
the 1/29/09 letter to the Planning Board. These Land Use Designations would
generally define the appropriate limits of development as a “Sustainable General
Plan” should do. An appropriate Zoning tool should also be developed for a
softer, gentler Rural Residential Zone.
Geologists and hydrologists have outlined that the structure of the Bridger Bench
has alluvial fans that shape the aquifer thus challenging development’s access to
adequate wells. It is believed that if this area is developed in the county, then the
DNRC will be the battleground for development density. A case in point is the +/-
300 acre Autumn Ridge development on Sypes Canyon Road. Access to water
changed the format of that project from the proposed 181 residential lots to an
actual total of 8 residences on 8 lots ranging from 20 to 40 acres each. The City
of Bozeman already altered Lyman Creek into a lined pipe and reservoir
removing it from naturally recharging the aquifer in that area. Water will continue
to be an issue with increasing development as the Bozeman area moves in and
out of drought conditions from year to year.
The same issues outlined here will be pursued with Gallatin Valley Commission
as well. We seek an avenue to work with you in shaping potential amendment(s)
to the plan as it moves to the Commission. The City of Bozeman needs to send a
clear message to the County about the care needed when dealing with these
development areas. Using a tool like the Bozeman Community Plan is a great
start. The language within needs to stand up to the scrutiny of Land Use
Attorneys looking to fill the request of their developer clients.
267
The City and the County had an agreement to coordinate growth with one
another as early as 2000.
http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/public_documents/gallatincomt_plandept/uploadedpdf
s/gp_intergovernmental_agreements.pdf
268
Sincerely,
________________
Steve Ziegler (Architect)
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0955
sziegler@san.rr.com
Below are other concerned residents that share the views outlined in this letter.
Larry and Rita Merkel
President of the Bridger Mountain Estates Home Owners Association
3148 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 587-1679
larry@churncreek.net
Chip Petrie and Patty Mckernan
3365 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 556-1261
cpetrie@ubalumni.com
mckernanpa@gmail.com
Ferd Johns
Beth Bridgers Johns
2355 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
bethbjohns@gmail.com
oldferdj@yahoo.com
Stacey Ziegler
2531 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Ph/Fx (406) 556-0377
Cell (406) 599-0954
slziegler@san.rr.com
Colonel Ron Stevens and Ilah Stevens
2745 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
ilahglee@littleappletech.com
269
Linda Henne
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
lhenne@imt.net
Bryon Dingman
8645 Lookfar Way
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 582-8755
bdizme@yahoo.com
Pat Martin
2771 Deer Creek
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 585-0177
pcmartin@montana.net
Mike Kvasnick
720 North Montana Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 589-2799
camprowdy@yahoo.com
Marilee and Gary Brown
2411 Kid Curry Drive
Bozeman, MT 59718
Ph: (406) 585-3700
2browndogs@earthlink.net
Mike Sand
1688 Star Ridge Rd.
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 539-2995
Montanalaw@aol.com
John Christopher, Ph.D.
11830 Gee Norman Road
Belgrade, MT 59714
Home Office: (406) 581-6215
Fax: (406) 994-2013
jcc@montana.edu
270
Dr Mark Hodgson
Christine Hodgson
501 South Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
Ph: (406) 522-9460
crhodgson@yahoo.com
hodgemd@yahoo.com
John and Paula Kausal.
711 Surrey Lane
Glenview, IL 60025
kausboy@prodigy.net
Robert Brewster
2550 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
Sue Henning
2670 Deer Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59715
shenning@mcn.net
Betty Stroock
2504 Valhalla Court
Bozeman, MT. 59715
bstroock@gmail.com
Richard Wolff
420 Meadowlark Drive
Bozeman, MT. 59718
rwolff@montana.edu
Mike and Jennifer Kassity
696 Belle Creek Road
Belgrade, MT. 59714
kassitym@gmail.com
jkassity@earthlink.net
Lisa & John Vanden Bos
2730 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 585-7926
lisa@fusac.org
john@fusac.org
271
Dr. Tony and Maribeth Goodman
2555 Deer Creek Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
aagoodman@aol.com
Jamey and Mike McCormick
410 Churn Creek Drive
Bozeman, MT 59715
522-3890
michael.j.mccormick@ubs.com
jfmccormick@hotmail.com
Bob and Kerry Petitt
2375 Whitetail Road
Bozeman, MT 59715
(406) 582-7425
rlpetitt@fedex.com
tpimt@aol.com
Glen Demaray
620 West Third Avenue
Three Forks, Mt 59752
yaarmed@yahoo.com
John Ripley
Owner Tract 6 N2 Sec 29
2709 Spring Pond Court
La Grange, KY 40031
john.ripley@insightbb.com
Sherri & Sam Nassar
3198 Sentinel Dr.
Bozeman, MT 59715
samuelnassar@yahoo.com
Reference Urban Land Institute
http://www.uli.org/
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
1
Chris Saunders
From:Tara L. Hastie
Sent:Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:40 AM
To:Chris Saunders
Subject:FW: Bridger Foothills and Bozeman 2020 Plan
Tara Hastie, Administrative Assistant
City of Bozeman Planning Department
20 E. Olive St., P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59715
ph. (406)582‐2260 fx. (406)582‐2263
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Lisa Gilliss [mailto:lisagilliss@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:24 AM
To: Kaaren Jacobson; Jeff Krauss; Jeff Rupp; Sean Becker; Eric Bryson;
commission@gallatin.mt.gov; Stacy Ulmen; Planning; randy.johnson@gallatin.mt.gov;
sean.ocallaghan@gallatin.mt.gov
Subject: Bridger Foothills and Bozeman 2020 Plan
Dear Mayor Jacobson, Commissioners and Planners,
Though I'm native to Montana I had the opportunity to live in Colorado for many years. I've
been asked to relay some of my experiences since the Friends of the Bridger Foothills
concepts are very similar to Boulder Colorado's City and County rules. Many years ago Boulder
put into practice zoning they call the "Blue Line" where nothing more can be built above that
line along the foothills. The preserved areas above the "Blue Line" have created a lot of
open space for hiking, biking and wildlife habitat within a few minutes of downtown and the
university, not to mention the beautiful backdrop it creates. Like Boulder, the mountains in
Gallatin Valley are very beautiful and the Bridgers, as you know, are spectacular.
One issue I didn't see in the Bridger overview is owner compensation. Owner compensation must
be part of the solution. Below are some points that touch on compensation, view preservation
and mountain development.
In Boulder county the mountain zoning is 1 home per 35 acres for new developments. Many lots
are grandfathered in for lessor acres but no subdividing parcels under 35 acres. If you have
land with a building right some of the options are to trade, sell, donate, take a tax
deduction for giving up a density/building right‐but keep the land if you wish, or of course,
build a house if requirements are met. It seems the county would rather not allow more
mountain homes even outside the view of the city mostly due to fire mitigation and wildlife
impact.
In addition, that city & county takes all growth issues seriously and when possible buys land
that can be conserved or converted to open space. When developing land we had to comply with
a long list of rules regarding materials, color, outdoor lighting, height, grade, wildlife
migration, habitat, water supply, fire, views, environmental impact...... Though sometimes
the requirements seem over‐the‐top the end goal seems to have been met. The public not only
views the mountains in their natural state, but can hike, picnic, see wildlife and enjoy the
beauty every day. The secondary benefit is retention of property values. The views of
Boulder Colorado are not only preserved, they are coveted, appreciated and up‐charged.
289
2
This said, the Bozeman views are just as valuable for this community, including individual
homeowners and future generations. Growth into the foothills will impact everyone in the long
run. Bozeman has done such a great job serving the public with projects such as Sourdough
Creek Trails, Peets Hill, Bogert Park, Bozeman Ponds, the new parking garage, handicap access
downtown, the new library, Lindley Park, ice skating rinks, the many acre parks in new
subdivisions, dog parks, new schools, recycling, the Dinosaur Park, Streamline Buses and many
more citizen use properties and projects. I love what you, our city and county officials
have accomplished. Now I encourage you to think of future generations and the value of the
foothills and surrounding mountains before it is too late. I hope relaying some of my
experiences will inspire you to continue on your path updating Bozeman's 2020 vision with
unobstructed views of the Bridgers and possibly other
mountains surrounding our city.
Best wishes,
Lisa Gilliss
Bozeman, MT.
290
1
Chris Saunders
From:Stacy Ulmen
Sent:Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:05 PM
To:Kaaren Jacobson; Sean Becker; Eric Bryson; Jeff Krauss; Jeff Rupp
Cc:Chris Kukulski; Andy Epple; Chris Saunders
Subject:FW: Urban?
From: FUSAC: Lisa Vanden Bos [mailto:lisa@fusac.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 2:02 PM
To: Stacy Ulmen
Subject: Urban?
Dear Ms Sulmen,
I have the best of both worlds, I spend half my year in Paris France and half in Bozeman, I play in the Parc de Versailles and in
Yellowstone. What could be better? The most wonderful thing about this is the contrast, the change from very urban to small town and
rural. So when I hear of the idea of annexing the foothills around Bozeman and giving them an "urban" designation I shiver. I'm quite
certain that Bozeman will never turn into a huge city like Paris, and I relax a little at that thought, but it is quite possible Bozeman will
become Aspen, Boulder, Saint Tropez or Albertville where you look around and see mountains, but mountains covered
with infrastructure. The designation of "urban" is too dense for the wonderful space in the foothills. If there is a house every acre,
there will be roads everywhere, grocery stores, gas stations, & coffee shops will be built with their oversized and overly lit parking
areas, water will not permeate all this pavement and will be channelled through a treatment plant rather than the soil. Animals will not
have their space as the humans will be constantly in their way. There will be more conflict as the humans expect to grow lovely
gardens and the deer are then considered pests. Recently I saw 25 bald eagles in one afternoon along the base of the Bridgers, if this
land is developed densely where will the majestic birds be able to rest during their migration? Once the benchland is developed is will
be impossible to go back.
There are many reasons I have spent half my time in Bozeman for the last 20 years - I would spend all of my year here if I could. I
know growth is inevitable and has already brought many good things to Bozeman, people will always be drawn to Bozeman to escape
from "urban" elsewhere, just like myself. So growth will happen, but can we in Bozeman not direct growth in a way to keep the
mountain foothills low in human density as a precious buffer space, a transition between urban and wild? Is there not a new zoning
term that could be created and applied to the foothills? Something such as Residential Rural which would allow only residential
developement on large parcels, permitting humans and animals to both use the land and resources as well as preserving the view from
elsewhere in the valley up towards the mountains.
And then I think of the future. If we apply "urban" to the foothills now, what will the next growth plan hold... "urban" up to the "M"?
Apartment buildings on top of the Storey Hills? There is plenty of "urban" that high up in Europe and there is very little wildlife left
there, water is channelled into very ugly cement banked torrents, the mountainsides are lit up like Christmas trees at night. Do we
really want to go that way? Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley are special, the foothills and benchlands are important and make the
valley what it is, this is why we all love Bozeman. Please do not designate this special land as urban.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Lisa Vanden Bos
26, rue Bénard / 2730 Whitetail Road
75014 Paris France / Bozeman, MT
291