HomeMy WebLinkAboutResidential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU)Zone Code Text Amendment.pdf
1
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) Zone Code Amendment Application
#Z-09241
MEETING DATE: Monday February 14, 2011
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action Item
RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Suggested Motion: “Having heard and considered public comment, I move to approve the Residential
Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment application No. Z-09241 incorporating the findings
included in the staff report and direct staff to return an ordinance for first reading.”
BACKGROUND: RTR Holdings II, Randy Hecht, and Bob Emery represented by GGLO Seattle,
WA and Intrinsik Architecture Bozeman, MT have requested that the City create a new zoning district
to be called the Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) district. The proposal includes suggested
language for intent, uses, setbacks, lot coverage and area, and special development standards. The new
district would add a new chapter, 18.17 REMU to the Bozeman Municipal Code. This proposal is for
new code language only; any proposal to implement the REMU district would first require a zone map
amendment for a specific property. The application also proposes to amend Chapter 18.36 Planned
Unit Development Standards, Chapter 18.40 Standards for Specific Uses, Chapter 18.46 Parking,
Chapter 18.50 Park and Recreation Requirements, Chapter 18.52 Signs, Chapter 18.54
Telecommunications, Chapter 18.80 Definitions to accommodate the uses, standards, and definitions
provided in the proposed REMU Zoning District.
The history of the review process and the project can be found on page 2 of the staff report. The
Zoning Commission held its final hearing on the proposed amendments on February 1, 2011. The
Zoning Commission forwards a unanimous recommendation of approval for the Commission’s
consideration.
The Commission last reviewed draft language of the district in October of 2010. A summary of
changes to the proposed amendments since that time can be found on pages 3-5 of the staff report.
154
2
The full record of the application, review, analysis, meeting minutes, and correspondence are available
in Zoning File #Z-09241 located in the City Department of Planning and Community Development.
FISCAL EFFECTS: No immediate fiscal affects are anticipated from these changes.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Approve the amendments as proposed.
2) Amend the text of the language and then approve the amendments.
3) Do not approve the amendments at all.
CONTACT: Please feel free to call or email Brian Krueger at bkrueger@bozeman.net, 582-2260, if
you have questions prior to the meeting.
Attachments:
Staff Report including Attachments A-D
Attachment A Proposed Chapter 18.17 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) Zoning District
Attachment B Associated UDO amendments to implement the REMU zone
Attachment C Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes February 1, 2011
Attachment D Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-09241
Attachment E Agency Comment Letter
The complete record of the application and review materials can be found in File #Z-09241 at the
office of Bozeman Planning and Community Development and are available on request
Report compiled on: February 4, 2011
155
STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM III
RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS MIXED USE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT FILE NO. #Z-09241
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 1
Item: Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Application #Z-
9241. To revise local development regulations to create a new zoning
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) district with defined intent,
uses, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and special development
standards. The application also proposes to amend Chapter 18.36
Planned Unit Development Standards, Chapter 18.40 Standards for
Specific Uses, Chapter 18.46 Parking, Chapter 18.50 Park and
Recreation Requirements, Chapter 18.52 Signs, Chapter 18.54
Telecommunications, Chapter 18.80 Definitions to accommodate the
uses, standards, and definitions provided in the proposed REMU
Zoning District.
Applicant: RTR Holdings II
67 Village Drive Suite 206
Belgrade, MT 59714
Representatives: Intrinsik Architecture
111 North Tracy Avenue
Bozeman, MT 59715
GGLO
1301 First Avenue
Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98101
Date: Before the City Commission on Monday, February 14, 2011, at 6 p.m.
in the City Commission Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 North Rouse
Avenue
Report By: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Recommendation: Approval of the Attached Draft REMU Chapter and associated UDO
section edits required to implement the zone.
Motion: Having heard and considered public comment, I move to approve the
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment
application No. Z-09241 incorporating the findings included in the
staff report and direct staff to return an ordinance for first reading.
____________________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed edits are applicable throughout the legal boundaries of the City of Bozeman as a
156
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 2
modification to the overall development regulations. At this time there is not an individual property to
which this application applies. Any future application of the proposed district would be required to
propose a zone map amendment.
PROPOSAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
RTR Holdings II, Randy Hecht, and Bob Emery represented by GGLO Seattle, WA and Intrinsik
Architecture Bozeman, MT have requested that the City create a new zoning district to be called the
Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) district. The proposal includes suggested language for intent,
uses, setbacks, lot coverage and area, and special development standards. The new district would add a
new chapter, 18.17 REMU to the Bozeman Municipal Code (Attachment A). This proposal is for new
code language only; any proposal to implement the REMU district would first require a zone map
amendment for a specific property. The application also proposes to amend Chapter Chapter 18.36
Planned Unit Development Standards, Chapter 18.40 Standards for Specific Uses, Chapter 18.46
Parking, Chapter 18.50 Park and Recreation Requirements, Chapter 18.52 Signs, Chapter 18.54
Telecommunications, Chapter 18.80 Definitions to accommodate the uses, standards, and definitions
provided in the proposed REMU Zoning District (Attachment B).
The Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Land Use Designation was created through the process to update
the Bozeman Community Plan. The Bozeman Community Plan provides a land use description for the
new category. The general vision is for a zone that is primarily residential, dominated by housing, high
density, walkable, supported by commercial uses, implemented at different scales, well connected to
park and transpiration infrastructure, and includes high quality urban design. The Community plan goes
on to state that “The Residential Emphasis Mixed Use land use category does not have a directly
corresponding zoning district which would allow the full expression of the range of land uses
contemplated as of the writing of this plan.” Under State Law Section 76-2-304 MCA within the
“Purposes of zoning” it states that zoning regulations must be made in accordance with a growth policy.
The applicants and their consultants contacted the City early in the process, in order to involve City
planning staff and to gain general support from the Planning Department to pursue the creation of the
REMU zoning district. Informal meetings between the applicant’s consultants and staff begin in late
2008 and continued through 2009. The formal application for a zone code amendment was submitted
December 16, 2009. The following summarizes the review process to date:
Late 2008 and 2009 Occasional informal meetings and correspondence with City staff
December 16, 2009 Formal application for zone code amendment submitted
January 2010 Initial staff review and comment to the applicant. Applicant requests
additional time to review comments and propose changes.
March 5, 2010 Revised chapter language submitted by applicant. Staff and DRC review.
Combined meeting of Planning Board and Zoning Commission planned.
April/May 2010 Applicant defers public meetings and additional review in order to review
comments and propose changes.
June 29, 2010 Revised chapter language submitted by applicant. Continued staff review.
August 17, 2010 Combined meeting of Planning Board and Zoning Commission
September 7, 2010 Zoning Commission Public Hearing and recommendation
October 11, 2010 City Commission Work Session and direction to staff to draft corresponding
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) section revisions required to
implement the REMU Zoning District
157
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 3
October 26, 2010 Revised Applicant REMU draft submitted following Commission direction
November 19, 2010 Staff delivered a final schedule to the applicant with the anticipated process
up to and including final review by the Commission
December 1, 2010 Revised staff REMU draft submitted to applicant for final comment
December 8, 2010 Final draft of associated UDO section revisions submitted to applicant for
final comment
December 15, 2010 Comments from applicant returned to staff regarding staff draft of REMU
and associated UDO section revisions
December 26, 2010 and January 2,
2011
Final public notice issued for Zoning Commission and City Commission
public hearings
January 19, 2011, February 1, 2011 Zoning Commission final public hearing and recommendation
February 14, 2011 City Commission public hearing and decision
The Planning Board reviewed the proposal through the lens of the growth policy at a combined meeting
with the Zoning Commission in August 2010 and strongly supported the proposal as consistent with the
land use description within the Community Plan and found that it maintained the standards and character
of the City. The zoning district language has evolved as staff has reviewed the proposal and the
applicant has responded to City and review board comments. The chapter evolved into two drafts, that
of the City and of the applicant. Both drafts were provided to the Zoning Commission for consideration
and recommendation during their September 7, 2010 public hearing. Following the public hearing the
Zoning Commission provided a recommendation for approval including comments where additional
changes would recommended in the draft. The City Commission reviewed the evolving REMU chapter
draft at an October 2010 public meeting. At that meeting, the Commission provided direction to both
the applicant and staff as to specific policy direction within the REMU chapter. The Commission also
directed staff to begin changes to the applicable sections of the UDO that would be impacted by the
inclusion of a new zoning district and chapter. Staff, in consultation with the applicant, has completed
drafts of those UDO sections that required revision based upon the attached REMU draft that is under
consideration for final recommendation and approval. The Zoning Commission held a second public
hearing on all draft amendments on February 1, 2011. The Zoning Commission conducted a public
hearing; considered the staff report, public comment; and discussed the proposed amendments.
Following review the Zoning Commission approved a motion to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission by a vote of 3-0. The minutes of that meeting and Zoning Commission
Resolution #Z-09241 are included in Attachments C and D of this report. The proposal is now ready for
final review by the City Commission.
SUMMARY OF FINAL REMU DRAFT CHANGES
Planning Staff has incorporated Zoning Commission and City Commission comment and direction into
the draft amendments (Attachments A and B) that follow this report. The current draft represents the
cumulative effort of well over a year of formal review by the Planning Department with substantial
consultation and input from the applicant. The following review covers the substantive changes that
have occurred since the last review by the Zoning Commission and City Commission in 2010:
Mix of Uses. The final draft clarifies that any REMU master planned area would be limited to a
maximum of 30% non residential uses. This would allow each REMU master planned area to be
calculated on its own merits, while maintain consistency over all REMU zoned properties as they
develop citywide.
158
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 4
Development subject to a Master Site Plan or Planned Unit Development. One of the primary tenants of
the REMU district is that due to the various mix of uses within the district and minimum level of
specific urban design standards, that projects over a certain size would be required to go through a
master planning process very early in the development review process. This requirement would
1)determine a layout that defined how streetscapes, structures, and potentially uses would relate; 2)
would consider infrastructure capacity analysis; and 3) define a development manual focused on urban
design for the master planned area prior to or concurrent with any subdivision or site development
review. The originally proposed requirement in the draft REMU chapter was for any project over 10
acres. Following review through the various agencies the proposed threshold is now proposed at 5
acres. All projects over 5 acres would be subject to a Master Site Plan or Planned Unit Development
prior to further development review on the property.
Allowance for Drive Up and Drive Through Convenience Uses. There was debate during the evolution
of the REMU chapter whether or not Drive Up and Drive Though Convenience Uses were consistent
with the intent and vision of a REMU district. This was largely due to the land area required for
automobile stacking for these types of uses and the noise and hours of operation associated with the
outdoor communication systems employed by most convenience restaurants with a drive through. Drive
Up and Drive Through Convenience Uses are proposed as permitted uses in the attached draft. A
footnote has been included to require screening and buffering where appropriate to be determined based
upon final site design and context for these uses. Staff also notes that with the reduced master planning
requirement (5 acres) any Master Plan or Planned Unit Development design/development manual would
be required to address this issue of drive up or drive through uses were anticipated within the
development.
Group Living. A new use classification is proposed to expand the potential for new housing forms
within the REMU district. Group living is defined broadly as a building or complex of buildings for
residential uses under unified control with all the requirements for residential occupancy (living,
sleeping, sanitation, eating, cooking, etc.) that don’t fall under the residential uses defined elsewhere in
the code. Eating and cooking areas could be shared in Group Living residences. One example of Group
Living would be a modern student housing development with sleeping and sanitation pods surrounding
shared eating and cooking facilities. New standards for Group Living are proposed in the Standards for
Specific Uses section of the UDO (18.40.105 BMC) for minimum lot area required per resident and a
requirement that on site services be only for residents. The parking chapter (Table 46-2, 18.46.060
BMC) has been modified to include a 1 parking space per resident requirement and the parks and
recreation requirements (18.50.020 BMC) to account for denser urban group living situations.
New Options for PUD Performance Points. Through the development of the REMU district new ways
to satisfy PUD performance points were conceived to further sustainability, community quality,
transportation, and urban design goals articulated in the Bozeman Community Plan (Growth Policy).
The new options include sustainable design and construction including energy efficiency, Neighborhood
LEED accreditation, recycling transfer stations, transit stops, wayfinding signage, and streetscape
improvements. After review and consideration, it was determined that there was enough value to these
new options such that staff has incorporated them into the PUD chapter (18.36 BMC) as UDO
amendments that would be available to PUD projects in all zones.
159
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 5
Parking Reductions. Based upon the overarching goals in the REMU district to be primarily residential,
walkable, urban, more vertical, and dense than existing residential/commercial zoned areas; staff is
recommending that parking reductions for nonresidential uses apply to the district. Staff recommends
that the same reductions (18.46.040.B.3.b BMC) available to the other Commercial Nodes in the City as
defined in Chapter 18.80 apply to the new REMU district. This would be 20 percent allowable
reduction for retail, 30 percent for restaurant, 10 percent for office, and 10 percent for all other uses.
These reductions would be in addition to other reductions available for mixed use, landscaping in lieu,
structured parking, and transit availability.
Removal of Street and Circulation Standards Specific to REMU. After consultation with the applicant,
Engineering Department staff, the Zoning and City Commissions it was determined that the best
approach to street and circulation standards was through the existing City Transportation Plan with the
option to look at street sections on a case by case basis through the subdivision and master plan and
PUD review processes. This is consistent with the approach in other zoning chapters within the UDO.
Alley Requirement Removed. During the first public hearing with the Zoning Commission and the
policy meeting with the City Commission staff tested an approach in the REMU district that would have
required alleyways for all development types within the district. Based upon feedback from the policy
bodies and the applicant it has been determined that alleys should be encouraged, but not required. This
flexibility gives developers the ability to demonstrate how their designs function with or without alleys
and gives the option for utilization of alleyways where they make the most sense. This gives designers
options when faced with the challenges of designing around natural features (watercourses, wetlands,
etc.), topography (slopes, cuts, hills), and the constraints of the existing development patterns and
infrastructure without going through a variance or PUD relaxation process.
Signage. The signage requirements for REMU remain the same, but were relocated to the signage
chapter within the UDO (18.52.050 BMC). Due to the wide range of uses and building types allowed
within the REMU district the signage chapter now classifies signage requirements for certain REMU
uses based upon the building type and use rather than a specific zoning district. For example single
household residential, townhouse, and apartment buildings are associated with signage requirements for
the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and RMH and the REMU nonresidential and mixed use buildings with the B-2,
B-3, UMU, M-1, M-2, BP, and PLI signage requirements.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Planning Staff has evaluated the proposed amendment with respect to the required criteria set forth in
state statute in Section 76-2-304, MCA, presented as follows. A summary of staff’s evaluation follows
in the discussion below. A positive response for all criteria is not required for approval.
1. Is the new zoning designed in accordance with the growth policy?
There are two parts to the analysis of this criterion. First, is the proposal in conformance with the general
and secondary principles advanced by the Bozeman Community Plan (2007 Plan). Second, how does the
proposal correspond with the land use mapping and corresponding descriptions of each land use
category?
160
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 6
Part 1. General Principles/Secondary Principles. Yes. The Bozeman Community Plan describes
seven core principles regarding land use in Section 3.2 of the plan.
These themes are: Neighborhoods, Sense of Place, Natural Amenities, Centers, Integration of
Action, Urban Density, and Sustainability. As shown in the selections below, the idea of carefully
site aggregated residential mixed use development with a comparatively high intensity of
development is supported. This support is not without limits. Staff comments follow each theme.
“Neighborhoods. There is strong public support for the preservation of existing
neighborhoods and new development being part of a larger whole, rather than just
anonymous subdivisions. This idea includes the strengthening and support of existing
neighborhoods through adequate infrastructure maintenance and other actions. As the
population of Bozeman grows, it is harder to keep the same “small town” feel because
residents cannot be on familiar terms with everyone. The neighborhood unit helps provide
the sense of familiarity and intimacy which can be lacking in larger communities. The
neighborhood commercial/activity center and local parks provide opportunities to casually
interact with other nearby residents. Not all neighborhoods are of equal size or character.”
The proposed district represents a new vision for the overall development pattern of an area zoned
REMU or a neighborhood that would emerge there. The proposed district does describe ways in
which the zone would strengthen and support the existing neighborhoods in the area. The
regulations promote the neighborhood unit integrated with commercial uses. Parkland and
commercial uses are both anticipated within the REMU district. The new zone, including new and
innovative standards, will promote development that has a generally more urban and intense
character that is inherent in mixed use neighborhoods.
“Sense of Place. The second idea builds on those of Centers and Neighborhoods. Part of
the appeal of Bozeman is its distinct character. A portion of this character comes from the
natural setting of the town. Bozeman’s character includes the sense of place created by
constructed landmarks such as Downtown and MSU. Preserving Bozeman as a unique
place rather than Anywhere, USA is important. This concept was strongly supported
throughout the public outreach process. The existing Downtown business core was the
overwhelming choice for the location which best represented the “heart” of Bozeman. The
preservation and strengthening of the unique features and built environment which give a
sense of place is important for Bozeman’s individual identity to continue in the future.
Incorporating community and architectural design features which provide organization and
landmarks, such as parks and commercial centers, in new development will help to anchor
and extend this sense of place as Bozeman grows. The sense of place will be strengthened
through development which fills in existing gaps in the City and helps to reinforce the
compact pattern of historic Bozeman.”
The proposal will enable a wide range of potential outcomes for the sense of place in those
areas zoned REMU. Some REMU areas may develop more intensely than others depending
upon the final locations and context of REMU zoned property. The wide array of housing and
uses available within the zoning district will allow each REMU zoned property to complement
the existing development pattern, create a unique sense of place as a mixed use neighborhood,
161
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 7
and mimic the historic development pattern that emerged in the City’s downtown core. The
district provides a requirement for mandatory master site planning and planned unit
development review that will assure the City has additional input into the development review
process for new REMU developments. This process at the plan review level will help to refine
what a REMU neighborhood is, what that built environment looks like, and how it functions
with a range of uses.
“Urban Density. Although a wide range of commercial and housing styles, types, and
densities are provided in Bozeman, not every option is provided. Bozeman is a city,
and the housing densities are not those of the rural areas of Gallatin County.
Fundamental to the efficient and cost-effective provision of urban services, multi-
modal transportation oriented development, and a compact development pattern is a
concentration of persons and activities. Density of development must also be balanced
against community character, parks and open spaces, and the housing choices of
citizens. Quality site and architectural design will materially affect the success and
acceptability of urban density and scale of development.”
The proposed district is to be composed of a broad range of residential uses. Under the use table, a
range of residential units from a one-story, single family, detached dwelling to a five-story apartment
building could be constructed in the zone. The zone includes a proposed requirement to limit non
residential uses to a maximum 30% of the gross building area(square footage) of all uses, subject to
some exceptions. Although no minimum density is proposed for the zone it is anticipated to be
constructed overall at medium and high densities. Quality site and architectural design will be a part
of the requirement for any master site plan or planned unit development application in the REMU
district.
Centers. Strengthen a pattern of community development oriented on centers. A
corollary principle is for compact development. Commercial activities in mutually
reinforcing centralized areas provide:
· Increased business synergy.
· Greater convenience for people with shorter travel distances to a wide range of
businesses
· The opportunity to accomplish several tasks with a single trip.
· Facilitates the use of transportation alternatives to single occupant motor vehicles,
with a corresponding reduction in traffic and road congestion and air quality
impacts.
· Enables greater access to employment, services, and recreation with a reduced
dependence on the automobile
· Greater efficiencies in delivery of public services,
· Corresponding cost savings in both personal and commercial applications.
As described in the Land Use Category Description for REMU, which is discussed in
further detail later in this report, the purpose of the REMU designation is not to create an
additional large commercial node within the City. The REMU designation envisions an
urban housing dominated zone that is appropriate near commercial centers. The REMU
neighborhood itself would play a supporting role to a larger commercial node or
162
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 8
community resource (school) within an area. Integrating commercial uses within a
residential neighborhood, as envisioned in the REMU zone, would increase business
synergy, provide greater convenience for people, create opportunities to accomplish
several tasks with a single trip and provide greater access to employment, services, and
recreation with a reduced dependence on the automobile.
Sustainability. Providing for the needs of today’s residents and visitors should be
done in a manner that does not jeopardize the quality of life, including the natural
environment, of future residents. Careful community design and thoughtful
development can serve the community well both now and in the future.
Sustainability is a holistic issue and should be interwoven through the City’s
operations and regulations.
Sustainability is a newer concept within the Bozeman Community Plan. Within the land use chapter
and many other chapters of the plan, sustainability has become a pervasive principle that is to be
“interwoven” through the City’s regulations. Staff anticipates sustainable principles to become a
much larger part of the regulatory structure of the City. This zoning district is the first proposed
since the adoption of the latest version of the Community Plan. Staff notes the integration of
sustainable standards within the proposal. Low Impact Development (LID) principles, building
energy efficiency, LEED neighborhood design, public transit facilities, recycling facilities, etc. are
all strategies embraced in the Community Plan that are allowable in the zone. These are not
mandatory standards, but are included as options.
Drawing on the seven basic ideas discussed above, the following principles were used to prepare the
land use designations, policies, and map within the Community Plan:
• Development should be based on neighborhoods, including commercial neighborhoods.
• Neighborhoods should have easily identified centers and edges.
• Neighborhoods should be reasonably compact and serve a variety of housing needs.
• Transportation systems should support the desired land use pattern and be interconnected
multi-modal networks (e.g. bicycles, pedestrian, transit, automobiles or other vehicles)
rather than focusing solely on automobiles.
• A diverse mix of activities should occur within proximity to each other, but not
necessarily have everything happening everywhere.
• Urban design should integrate multi-modal transportation, open spaces, land use activity,
and quality of life.
• Open spaces, including parks, trails, and other gathering places, should be in convenient
locations.
• Development should be integrated into neighborhoods and the larger community rather
than as a series of unconnected stand alone projects.
• A variety of housing and employment opportunities is important.
• Land development should be compatible with and further other community goals.
• Land use designations must respond to a broad range of factors, including natural
constraints, economic constraints, and other community priorities.
• The needs of new and existing development must coexist and remain in balance.
• Infill development and redevelopment which encourages the efficient utilization of land
and existing infrastructure systems is preferred.
163
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 9
• Future development patterns should not be detrimental to the existing community, with
special attention to be given to the support of the existing Historic Core and Downtown
of the community.
Secondary Principles. Other policies within the Community Plan that are applicable to this district
discussion:
Goal C-1 Human Scale and compatibility—Create a community composed of neighborhoods
designed for the human scale and compatibility in which the streets and buildings are properly sized
within their context, services and amenities are convenient, visually pleasing, and properly
integrated.
Objective C-1.4: Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances the
City’s visual qualities within neighborhood, community, and regional commercial areas.
Goal C-2 Community Circulation—Create a circulation system both vehicular and pedestrian that is
fully connected, integrated and designed for ease of use.
Objective-2.3 Require alleys in all new development both commercial and residential where feasible.
Objective C-2.5 Explore and encourage innovative parking solutions for both residential and
commercial project including parking best practices, expanded parking districts, cash in lieu of
parking and design guidelines for structured parking.
Goal C-3 Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian oriented, contain a variety
of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public spaces, have a commercial center and
defined boundaries.
Objective C-3.3 Establish minimum residential densities in new and redeveloping residential areas.
Objective C-3.5: Integrate a wide variety of open lands, such as parks, trails, squares, greens, playing
fields, natural areas, orchards and gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces into neighborhoods.
Objective C-4.2: All new residential buildings should be designed to emphasize the visually
interesting features of the building, as seen from the public street and sidewalk. The visual impact of
garage doors, driveways, and other off-street parking will be minimized and mitigated.
Objective C-4.3: Ensure the development of new residential structures that are aesthetically pleasing
through urban design.
Objective C-4.5: Investigate expanding form based zoning as a design review strategy for the City.
Goal C-5: Public Landscaping and Architecture— Enhance the urban appearance and environment
through the use of architectural excellence, landscaping, trees and open space.
Objective C-5.2: Encourage inclusion of plazas and other urban design features as public areas
within developments.
164
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 10
Objective C-5.3: Continue to develop the design guidelines to encourage innovative landscaping
including urban hardscapes, public art, plazas, roof gardens, green walls, and other features to
emphasize the urban qualities of individual projects.
Objective C-5.4: Continue to develop the design guidelines to provide direction to naturalizing
stormwater systems and integrating them into the landscape as an amenity.
Objective C-6.1: Continue to develop the design guidelines to encourage the treatment of
stormwater on site with an aesthetic and integrated approach utilizing Low Impact Development
principles. Provide incentives for innovation.
Objective C-6.2: Continue to develop the design guidelines to provide direction for the integration of
site based power generation (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) in both commercial and residential
projects.
Goal H-1: Promote an adequate supply of safe, quality housing that is diverse in type, density, cost,
and location with an emphasis on maintaining neighborhood character and stability.
Goal H-2: Promote the creation of housing which advances the seven guiding land use principles of
Chapter 3 (Provided above).
Objective H2.2 - Promote energy efficiency and incorporation of sustainable features in new and
existing housing.
Objective H3.3. – Promote the development of a wide variety of housing types, designs, and costs to
meet the wide range of residential needs of Bozeman residents.
Objective AC-1.3: Incorporate community arts and culture displays in public parks, buildings,
recreational facilities and public service facilities.
Objective AC-1.4: Provide clear and concise City standards and requirements that encourage art and
culture displays and events in private development.
Objective E-2.2: Protect, restore, and enhance riparian corridors and floodplain areas to protect the
chemical, biological, and physical quality of water resources.
Objective E-2.3: Ensure that land uses in areas characterized by a high water table and/or aquifer
recharge zone will not contaminate water resources.
Objective E-3.2-: Encourage sustainable development and building practices.
Goal R-1: Provide for accessible, desirable, and adequately maintained public parks, open spaces,
trail systems, and recreational facilities for residents of the community.
Objective R-1.5: Connect the community using trails.
165
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 11
Objective R-1.6: Ensure that parkland’s size, location, suitability, and development promote
usability.
Goal T-2: Ensure that a variety of travel options exist which allow safe, logical, and balanced
transportation choices.
Objective T-2.1: For the purposes of transportation and land use planning and development, non-
motorized travel options and networks shall be of equal importance and consideration as motorized
travel options. This balance shall ensure that a variety of travel opportunities are available which do
not require the use of automobiles for local trips.
Objective T-2.2: Review and revise parking requirements to ensure provision of parking consistent
with other goals of this plan to support commercial and residential activities in the downtown and
other areas.
Objective T-2.3: Reduce the negative health and physical impacts of the automobile by coordinating
transportation policies to support land use decisions that can decrease the number and length of
automobile trips. When considering automobile impacts maintain awareness of all the costs of
transportation.
Goal T-4: Pathways–Establish and maintain an integrated system of transportation and recreational
pathways, including streets, bicycle and pedestrian trails, neighborhood parks, green belts and open
space.
Objective T-4.3: Review, revise, and update trail/pathway standards to reflect the various types and
uses of trails and other non-motorized travel ways.
Objective T-4.4: Continue to improve the existing pedestrian network to increase American’s with
Disabilities Act compliance. The long term intent is full accessibility throughout the community
transportation system. Give highest priority to those improvements that will provide the greatest
access to community centers of activity.
Part 2. Land Use Description. Yes. State law requires that municipal zoning be in conformance
with an adopted growth policy. This includes by as matters of policy and land use mapping.
Section 3.4 and 3.5 of the Bozeman Community Plan describes the future land use map and the
definition of the different categories of uses depicted. The map depicts distinctions between land
uses. This is consistent with the principle of mixed use where a diverse mix of activities should
occur within proximity to each other, but not necessarily have everything happening everywhere.
When considering the standards proposed for the REMU district we must consider the description of
the land use category that has been provided as a basis for the zone:
“Residential Emphasis Mixed Use. The Residential Mixed-Use category
promotes neighborhoods with supporting services that are substantially dominated
by housing. A diversity of residential housing types should be built on the
majority of any area within this category. Housing choice for a variety of
166
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 12
households is desired and can include attached and small detached single-
household dwellings, apartments, and live-work units. Residences should be
included on the upper floors of buildings with ground floor commercial uses.
Variation in building massing, height, and other design characteristics should
contribute to a complete and interesting streetscape and may be larger than in the
Residential category.
Secondary supporting uses, such as retail, offices, and civic uses, are permitted at
the ground floor. All uses should complement existing and planned residential
uses. Non-residential uses are expected to be pedestrian oriented and emphasize
the human scale with modulation as needed in larger structures. Stand alone,
large, non-residential uses are discouraged. Non-residential spaces should
provide an interesting pedestrian experience with quality urban design for
buildings, sites, and open spaces.
This category is implemented at different scales. The details of implementing
standards will vary with the scale. The category is appropriate near commercial
centers and larger areas should have access on collector and arterial streets. Multi-
household higher density urban development is expected. Any development
within this category should have a well integrated transportation and open space
network which encourages pedestrian activity and provides ready access within
and to adjacent development.”
Staff finds multiple elements within the land use designation for Residential Emphasis Mixed Use
where the proposed zoning complies with the original intent of the district:
“The Residential Mixed-Use category promotes neighborhoods with supporting
services that are substantially dominated by housing.”
The proposed district recommends a maximum of 30% non residential uses for any master planned
area. This is generally consistent with the vision provided in the land use designation.
“Residences should be included on the upper floors of buildings with
ground floor commercial uses.”
Residential units are allowed on the upper floors of buildings with ground floor commercial uses.
There are no mandatory provisions to provide residences on the upper floors of buildings. There are
no requirements within the district for mandatory vertical mixing of uses.
“Secondary supporting uses, such as retail, offices, and civic uses, are
permitted at the ground floor.”
Retail, offices, civic uses among others are permitted on the ground floor of buildings throughout the
zone.
“Stand alone, large, non-residential uses are discouraged.”
167
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 13
The proposal permits multiple, large, stand alone, non-residential uses. There are limitations
presented on size and numbers of residential buildings that could be constructed.
“Variation in building massing, height, and other design
characteristics should contribute to a complete and interesting
streetscape and may be larger than in the Residential
category…. Non-residential uses are expected to be pedestrian
oriented and emphasize the human scale with modulation as
needed in larger structures.”
Building massing, height, streetscapes, and pedestrian amenities are all disciplines that will be
addressed with additional development review in the zone. The proposed zone includes intent
statements and other guidelines that promote the goals listed in the land use description. Further
review of master site plans and planned unit developments for projects within the REMU zone will
be at the detailed level at which these urban design disciplines can be implemented.
2. Is the new zoning designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
Yes. The proposed district enables a diversity of mutually supportive uses and development
standards which encourage higher density development. The residential/commercial proximity will
encourage walking and cycling uses which will lessen vehicle use and thereby any street congestion.
A land use pattern that incorporates a mix of uses supports less congestion by enabling shorter
vehicle trips, shared destination trips, and maximizes the efficiency of walking or cycling. The
realization of these benefits is enhanced by location of uses in proximity to residential uses enabling
access without circulation onto adjacent principal arterial streets. Placement of this district must be
carefully integrated with the community’s transportation system, including transit.
3. Will the new zoning promote health and general welfare?
Yes. The proximity of development will likely encourage walking and cycling. Physical exercise is a
proven contributor to health. The district supports development of neighborhood districts with a
unique sense of place within the City advancing the general welfare of the community.
4. Will the new zoning secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers?
Yes. The proposal creates a mechanism for developing certain land uses. Future physical
construction must comply with building codes and other requirements to protect from physical
hazards. Similar combinations of uses and the necessary infrastructure to protect from hazards have
been considered during the creation of the development standards which will apply. Any future
proposals on property zoned REMU will also be subject to additional provisions within Title 18 that
have been specifically created to assure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers.
5. Will the new zoning provide adequate light and air?
168
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 14
Yes. The proposed district does encourage buildings taller than typically constructed in Bozeman at
this time. The proposal does allow small setbacks which can intensify development density. The
proposal allows a wide range of buildings heights with little requirement for transitions between
buildings. Residential development within the district is subject to open space and parkland
requirements of Section 18.34.090, BMC. The proposal encourages creation of common open
spaces. Building Code requirements will ensure adequate building interior ventilation.
6. Will the new zoning prevent overcrowding of land?
Yes. This criterion is intended to prevent a disparity between the intensity of development and the
infrastructure needed to avoid detrimental or unsafe consequences of that development. There are
various standards and review procedures used by the City to avoid such negative outcomes.
Examples of standards are for sewer flow capacity, traffic congestion levels of service, and
availability of fire fighting water. Examples of review procedures is the site plan review process and
associated criteria of Chapter 18.34, BMC and building codes. So long as adequate services can be
provided to meet demands of development the land will not be overcrowded.
7. Will the new zoning avoid the undue concentration of population?
Yes. Opinions of what constitutes “undue” concentration of population are highly individualized.
The proposed district will allow a higher intensity of use than normally seen. Building codes and
similar development standards will ensure that the negative effects of concentrated population are
mitigated. The requirements for master planning will ensure proper infrastructure capacity analysis
early in the process to assure compliance with long range infrastructure plans and prior to
development.
8. Will the new zoning facilitate the adequate provisions of transportation, water, sewer, schools,
parks, fire, police, and other public requirements?
Yes. Standards ensuring adequate provision of needed infrastructure and public safety will still be
applicable. Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code includes additional standards to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare. There are various standards and review procedures used by the
City to avoid negative outcomes. Examples of standards are for sewer flow capacity, traffic
congestion levels of service, availability water, parkland standards, transit, etc.
9. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the character of the district?
Neutral. The proposal seeks to create a new district in the regulations. Therefore there is no current
location to specifically evaluate for character as there would be with an individual zone map
amendment. Any future application of the new district will be required to make that specific
evaluation. If applied as recommended by Staff, the basic planning level analysis will have been
conducted to determine that the district is placed correctly.
As stated above in the growth policy conformance criteria review, the proposal will enable a
wide range of potential outcomes for the sense of place in those areas zoned REMU. Some
REMU areas may develop more intensely than others depending upon the final locations and
context of REMU zoned property. The wide array of housing and uses available within the
169
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 15
zoning district will allow each REMU zoned property to complement the existing development
pattern and to install a sense of place as a mixed use neighborhood which was the historic
development pattern in the City’s core. The district provides a requirement for mandatory
master site planning and planned unit development review that will assure the City has
additional input into the development review process for new REMU developments. This
process at the plan review level will help to refine what a REMU neighborhood is, what that
built environment looks like, and how it functions with a range of uses.
10. Does the new zoning give reasonable consideration to the peculiar suitability of the district for
particular uses?
Yes. The wide combination of uses allowed in the proposed district is very similar to a combination
of the R-1-R-4 districts with the B-2 district. The uses appear likely to be mutually beneficial with
adequate standards to integrate the more intensive uses within a residentially dominated
neighborhood. The City has additional review processes such as subdivision review, site plan
review, and planned unit development review through which to further review and regulate
development within the zone.
11. Was the new zoning adopted with a view of conserving the value of buildings?
Neutral. The current proposal is not being applied to a specific location. This zoning district is not
likely to be placed on a location with existing buildings.
12. Does the new zoning encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality?
Neutral. The proposed changes do not modify the zoning map. If the new district were to be placed
on the REMU designated areas as recommended, it would be consistent with this criterion and the
Community Plan. Placement outside of the current planned areas would be counter to this criterion.
The City maintains an inventory of land uses and zoned areas for the city area. This proposal would
need to be incorporated into that inventory to ensure that land remains available for all the necessary
functions within the City.
PUBLIC COMMENT
One agency comment letter was received from Montana State University in favor of the proposal. Any
additional written comment will be forwarded at the public hearing.
Conclusion
Pursuant to Section 76-2-304, Montana Codes Annotated, the Zoning Commission shall review the
Unified Development Ordinance text amendment application to determine if the proposed zoning
change meets the requirements of the Adopted Growth Policy, state statute, and other adopted state laws
and local ordinances. The Zoning Commission shall act to recommend approval or denial of the Unified
Development Ordinance text amendment. Per Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-09241 the Zoning
Commission recommends approval of the application. The City Commission is responsible to make the
final decision on the application.
170
#Z-09241 Residential Emphasis Mixed Use Zone Code Text Amendment Staff Report 16
Attachments: Attachment A – REMU District Draft 2-4-11
Attachment B – Associated UDO Chapter Amendments to implement REMU
Attachment C – Zoning Commission Minutes February 1, 2011
Attachment D – Zoning Commission Resolution #Z-09241
Attachment E – Agency Comment Letter
Report Sent To: RTR Holdings, 67 Village Drive, Suite 206 Belgrade, MT 59714
Bob Emery 3522 Clay Street San Francisco CA 94118
Randy Hecht 22 Turtle Rock Court Tiburon CA 94920
Intrinsik Architecture 111 North Tracy Avenue Bozeman, MT 59715
GGLO 1301 First Avenue, Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98101
171
ATTACHMENT A
172
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 1 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
CHAPTER 18.17
RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT
(REMU)
18.17.010 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS MIXED-USE ZONING
DISTRICT
The intent and purpose of the Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use (REMU) district is to establish areas
within Bozeman that are mixed-use in character and to provide options for a variety of housing,
employment, retail and neighborhood service opportunities within a new or existing neighborhood,
while providing predictability to landowners and residents in uses and standards. There is a rebuttable
presumption that the uses set forth for the district will be compatible both within the district and to
adjoining zoning districts when the standards of Title 18 are met and any applicable conditions of
approval have been satisfied. Additional requirements for development apply within overlay districts. All
development is subject to §18.02.050, BMC.
A. It is further the intent of this district to implement the principles of the adopted growth policy:
Neighborhoods
1. Create self-sustaining neighborhoods that will lay the foundation for healthy lifestyles;
2. Support compact, walkable developments that promote balanced transportation options;
3. Have residential as the majority use with a range of densities;
4. Provide for a diverse array of commercial and civic uses supporting residential;
5. Have residential and commercial uses mixed vertically and/or horizontally;
6. Locate adjacent to residential neighborhoods that can sustain commercial uses within
walking distance and a wider range of housing types;
7. Encourage developments that exhibit the physical design characteristics of vibrant, urban,
and pedestrian-oriented complete streets;
Sense of Place
8. Support or add to an existing neighborhood context;
9. Enhance an existing neighborhood’s sense of place and strive to make it more self-
sustainable;
10. Encourage a new neighborhood commercial center(s) with a unique identity and strong
sense of place;
11. Develop commercial and mixed-use areas that are safe, comfortable, and attractive to
pedestrians;
12. Reinforce the principle of streets as public places that encourage pedestrian and bicycle
travel, transit, on-street parking and physical elements of complete streets;
Natural Amenities
13. Preserve and integrate the natural amenities into the development;
14. Appropriately balance a hierarchy of both parks and public spaces that are within the
neighborhood;
173
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 2 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
Centers
15. Group uses of property to create vibrant centers
16. Where appropriate create a center within an existing neighborhood;
17. Facilitate proven, market driven projects to ensure both long and short-term financial
viability;
18. Allow an appropriate blend of complimentary mixed land uses including, but not limited
to, retail, offices, commercial services, restaurants, bars, hotels, recreation and civic uses,
and housing, to create economic and social vitality;
19. Foster the master plan development into a mix of feasible, market driven uses;
20. Emphasize the need to serve the adjacent, local neighborhood and also the greater
Bozeman area as well;
21. Maximize land use efficiency by encouraging shared use parking;
Integration of Action
22. Support existing infrastructure that is within and adjacent to REMU zones;
23. Add to existing transportation and open space network, encourage pedestrian and bicycle
travel;
24. Encourage master planned communities with thoughtful development;
25. Provide flexibility in the placement and design of new developments and redevelopment
to anticipate changes in the marketplace;
26. Provide roadway and pedestrian connections to residential areas;
27. Facilitate development (land use mix, density and design) that supports public transit,
where applicable;
28. Provide flexibility in phasing to help insure both long and short term financial viability of
the project as a whole;
Urban Density
29. Encourage efficient land use by facilitating, high-density, single or multi-story housing,
commercial and retail development;
30. Provide transitions between high-traffic streets and adjacent residential neighborhoods and
Sustainability
31. Promote sustainable communities through careful planning.
B. To accomplish in the intent of the district, the REMU district may be located within existing
and established neighborhoods, or located in new undeveloped areas of the City.
Implementation of certain regulations herein may be implemented with regard to the specific
characteristics and location of a development site. REMU districts should be located adjacent
to or near planned or existing residential development to enhance walking and bicycle use.
18.17.020 AUTHORIZED USES.
A. Uses in the Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use district are depicted in the table below. Principal
uses are indicated with a “P,” conditional uses are indicated with a “C,” accessory uses are
indicated with an “A,” and uses which are not permitted within the district are indicated by a
“-.”
174
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 3 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
B. The uses listed are deliberately broad and some are given special definitions in Chapter 18.80,
BMC. The intent of this method is to provide general guidance for uses while allowing the
unique needs and circumstances of each proposal to be specifically addressed through the
review process. Some uses are the subject of special regulations contained in Chapter 18.40,
BMC.
C. Uses Required and Limited
1. REMU districts are intended to be developed with a mix of uses that encourage a range
of building types, scales, densities, and site configurations.
2. Developments are encouraged to include non-residential uses, especially commercial and
neighborhood support services, mixed horizontally and/or vertically, to promote
compact, walkable and sustainable neighborhoods.
3. Non-residential uses shall not exceed 30 percent of the total gross building square
footage of all uses within the master planned area unless otherwise allowed in this
section, through a Master Site Plan or PUD review.
4. For the purposes of calculating the percentage of a use within the master planned area,
the gross square foot floor area of building for each use shall be utilized.
5. The specific method of tracking will be determined during the Master Site Plan, PUD, or
Site Plan review.
6. Home-based businesses are not considered non-residential uses and shall not be limited
by the provisions of the Section.
7. Non-residential uses intended for public benefit and shared public amenities shall not be
limited by the provisions of this Section. These uses include, but are not limited to,
schools, parks, community centers, city operated services and structured parking
facilities.
D. Development Review Applications
1. To accomplish the intent of the district, the REMU district is anticipated to be located
on sites five acres or larger. Development review applications for sites in the REMU
district greater than, or equal to, ten five acres will be first subject to review as a Master
Site Plan per Chapter 18.34; or as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) per 18.36, as
determined by the applicant.
2. Project applications for subsequent project phases in compliance with an approved
Master Site Plan or PUD may be reviewed as a Site Plan Review or Sketch Plan Review
in accordance with Chapter 18.34.
3. All development review applications for property in the REMU district smaller than ten
five acres are subject to the standards in this chapter; and may be subject to review as a
Master Site Plan per Chapter 18.34 by decision of the Planning Director, upon finding:
a. The development application is for a site considered a major infill site, having a
significant impact on an existing neighborhood; or may create a center within an
existing neighborhood;
b. The proposed development is located at an intersections deemed to have special
significance;
c. The proposed development may have a significant impact on existing transportation
and open space network, pedestrian and bicycle travel;
d. The proposed development requires a multi-year approval and multiple phases for
completion.
175
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 4 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
Table 17-1
TABLE OF USES MAXIMUM
GROSS
BUILDING
AREA
AUTHORIZED
USES
Accessory Dwelling Unit P
Apartments and Apartment Buildings P
Arts and Entertainment Center 12,000 sf P
Assisted Living/Elderly Care Facilities P
Automobile Fuel Sales C
Automobile Parking Lot or Garage (public or private) P
Automobile Washing Establishment C
Banks and Other Financial Institutions P
Bed & Breakfast P
Business, Technical or Vocational School P
Community Centers P
Community Residential Facilities P
Convenience Uses Except For Automobile Fuel Sales (as listed
above)
P
Cooperative Household P
Convenience Use Restaurant)4 5,000 sf P
Daycare – family, group, or center P
Essential Services (Type II) C
Extended-Stay Lodgings 40,000 sf P
Health and Exercise Establishments P
Home-based Businesses (subject to 18.17.030.E only) P
Hospitals C
Hotel or Motel 40,000 sf P
Laboratories, Research and Diagnostic 10,000 sf P
Laundry Service Center P
Light Goods Repair P
Lodging Houses P
Manufacturing (light and completely indoors) 5,000 sf P
Museum P
Medical and Dental Offices, Clinics and Centers P
Meeting Hall P
Offices P
Other Buildings & Structures (typically accessory to permitted
uses)
A
Personal and Convenience Services P
Pet Grooming Shop P
Printing Offices and Publishing Establishments 5,000 sf P
Fraternity, Sorority or Lodge P
176
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 5 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
Public Buildings P
Refuse and Recycling Containers A
Restaurants P
Retail Uses less than or equal to 5,000sf 5,000 sf P 1
Retail Uses greater than 5,000sf and less than or equal to 12,000 sf 12,000 sf P
1, 2
Retail Uses greater than 12,000sf and less than or equal to 25,000sf 25,000 sf P
1, 3
Sales of Alcohol for On-Premise Consumption – No gaming
allowed
C
Single household dwelling P
Congregate Housing FacilityGroup Living PP 4
Three- or four-household dwelling P
Townhouses (five attached units or less) P
Two-household dwelling P
Veterinary Clinic C
Wholesale Distributors With On-Premise Retail Outlets (providing
warehousing is limited to commodities which are sold on the
premises)
10,000 sf C
Wholesale Establishments (ones that use samples, but do not stock
on premises)
5,000 sf C
Any Use, Except Adult Businesses and Casinos Approved as Part
of a Planned Unit Development Subject to the provisions of
Chapter 18.36, BMC.
C
1 Excluding Adult Businesses as defined in Chapter §18.80.BMC.
2 Limited to no more than four structures per 100 acres of contiguous master planned development and subject to 18.17.020.C.
3 Limited to no more than two structures per 100 acres of contiguous master planned development and subject to 18.17.020.C.
4 Convenience Use Restaurants with Drive Ups or Drive Throughs require additional buffering when adjacent to
residential uses which may include but are not limited to including but not limited to a combination of sound barrier
walls, berms, and/or landscaping.
4 Congregate Housing Facility is defined as: “A living facility with five or more dwelling units for persons intended to be
enrolled in an institution of higher learning. Student Housing Facilities are not limited to the restrictions for number
of occupants defined in 18.80.1390, but must provide adequate parking and open space in accordance with this Title.”
18.17.030 SPECIAL STANDARDS
A. The Special Standards set forth in this section are minimum standards for a development review
application. Standards not specifically addressed by this section are subject to the standards set
forth in this Title.
B.When development in a REMU district uses the PUD process for land use approval, any combination
of the following methods, in addition to the performance point criteria listed in 18.36.090 BMC,
may earn performance points.
1.Designed to meet LEED-ND and be conditionally approved or have pre-certification by the
authority (20 points)
2.Inclusion of a Low Impact Development Plan (6 points) that includes the following:
a. On-site stormwater treatment systems that exceed the requirements of BMC Title
14, Stormwater, including but not limited to: incorporating drainage methods and
technologies that treat, detain and/or infiltrate stormwater as close as possible to the
source of run-off and the use of natural drainage systems across sites, rather than
underground closed-pipe systems to the extent feasible. Natural drainage systems
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
177
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 6 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
reduce the negative impacts of stormwater runoff by redesigning residential streets
to take advantage of plants, trees, and soils to clean runoff and manage stormwater
flows. Vegetated swales, stormwater cascades, and small wetland ponds allow soils to
absorb water, slowing flows and filtering out many contaminants.
b. The Low Impact Development Plan shall be integrated with the Snow Storage and
Management Plan
c. At least 75% of new planting should be chosen from the list of Drought Tolerant
Plants & Xeriscaping in Montana (2010), produced by the Montana Nursery &
Landscape Association, or approved/updated equivalent list approved by the City of
Bozeman. Any species listed as noxious or invasive in Montana shall be avoided.
d. Inclusion of weather-based irrigation controllers.
e. Limitations in the Covenants or Design Guidelines on the amount and type of sod
permitted.
3.Sustainable Design and Construction (6 points)
a.Covenants or Design Guidelines that include a commitment to design the majority of
buildings to meet LEED certification requirements or approved equivalent
certification approved by the City of Bozeman. Equivalent certification programs
will also be considered during Preliminary PUD review..
b.Energy use reduction. Residential Covenants or Design Guidelines shall include a
commitment to build ENERGY STAR certified homes, which meet EPA guidelines
that make them 20–30% more efficient than standard homes. Non-residential
Covenants and Design Guidelines shall include a commitment to build and certify
buildings that meet the EPA’s ENERGY STAR challenge, a program that applies to
offices, schools, post offices, retail, banks, warehouses and residence halls, or
approved equivalent program. Equivalent programs will also be considered during
Preliminary PUD review.
c.Water use reduction. Covenants or Design Guidelines shall include a commitment to
use WaterSense certified products for all kitchen, bathroom and irrigation hardware.
WaterSense is an EPA-sponsored partnership program that promotes water
efficiency and expands the market for water-efficient products, programs, and
practices. Equivalent programs will also be considered during Preliminary PUD
review.
d.Provision of solar, wind or other alternative energy sources or participation in an
approved cash-in-lieu program.
4.Integrated and coordinated way-finding measures within overall project (4 points)
5.On-site recycling transfer station (4 points)
6.Public transportation bus station or enhanced covered bus stop (1 point per station or
enhanced stop)
7.Streetscape Improvements (6 points): Streetscape design features that exceed the minimum
street standards including street furniture, pedestrian lighting, low-impact development
techniques, on-street parking standards, crosswalks, landscape and planting, way-finding,
public art or other design elements. Such elements must be installed as part of the street
infrastructure.
C.B. Landscape and Planting Standards.
Table 18.17-2 (below) lists the minimum number of points needed for landscape plan approval
for development types within REMU districts.
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
178
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 7 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
Table 17-2
Development Type Lot With Residential
Adjacency
Lot Without Residential
Adjacency
Residential Small-Lot
Single-Family
N/A per 18.48.020.B N/A per 18.48.020.B
Residential: Single-Family N/A per 18.48.020.B N/A per 18.48.020.B
Residential: Townhouse
2 to 4 attached units
N/A per 18.48.020.B N/A per 18.48.020.B
Residential: Townhouse or
Townhouse Cluster
5 or more attached units
23 23
Residential: Stacked Flats
2 to 4 attached unitsTwo to
Four Household Dwellings
N/A per 18.48.020.B N/A per 18.48.020.B
Residential: Stacked
Flats/Apartments
5 or more attached units
23 23
Mixed Use with Residential 15 15
Non Residential Projects 23 15
PUD 23 23
D. Street and Circulation Standards
1. The policies and standards of the City’s long-range transportation plan apply to REMU
districts. New streets within REMU districts shall be complete streets that
accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, buses, automobiles and wintertime snow storage,
and work in concert with internal property accesses and adjacent development to create
a connected and vibrant public realm. REMU street standards also include the following
stipulations:
a. Natural storm drainage systems are allowed within street ROWs.
b. Boulevard strips and medians may incorporate natural drainage technologies.
c. Buildings shall be oriented with front facades facing the street.
d. Where this is not possible, a side facade may face the street, but at least 25% of its
surface area must be transparent windows. The overall design of side facades should
address the public nature of the street.
e. Shared drive accesses shall be used to reduce the need for additional curb cuts, when
feasible.
f. On-street parking should be maximized wherever feasible. The City’s long-range transportation
plan street standards that are most commonly used for new streets in REMU districts are listed below.
Additional modifications may be proposed, but must be approved by the City Commission through the
subdivision variance or PUD process.
3. Collector Streets
Collector streets in REMU districts serve development types that are primarily commercial, residential or
mixed-use. Modifications allow each street type to be customized with pedestrian-friendly elements that
are appropriate for mixed-use centers and corridors.
179
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 8 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
a.Collector: 2-Lane
Table 17-3
Features Baseline Modifications allowed outright
Sidewalk 6’ wide 6’ – 14’ wide
Boulevard strip 14’ wide;
street trees req.
5’ - 14’ wide; may be eliminated in mixed-
use centers or commercial clusters; street
trees required
Parking lane 8’-20’ wide Perpendicular or angled parking permitted.
Bike lane 5’ wide
Drive lanes 10’ wide
Pavement striping 1’ wide
ROW 90’ wide
b. Collector: 3-Lane
Table 17-4
Features Baseline Modifications allowed outright
Sidewalk 6’ wide 6’ – 14’ wide
Boulevard strip 14’ wide;
street trees req.
5’ -14’ wide; may be eliminated in mixed-use
centers or commercial clusters; street trees
required
Parking lane not allowed
Bike lane 5’ wide
Drive lanes 10’ wide
Left turn lane 15’ wide
Pavement striping 2’ wide overall
ROW 90’ wide
c. Collector: 3-Lane with Median
Table 17-5
Features Baseline Modifications allowed outright
Sidewalk 6’ wide 6’ –13’ wide
Boulevard strip 7’ wide;
street trees req.
5’ - 7’ wide; may be eliminated in mixed-use
centers or commercial clusters; street trees
required
Parking lane 8’ -20’ wide Parallel or angled parking permitted
Bike lane 5’ wide
Drive lanes 10’ wide
Median/turn lane 14’ wide 8’ wide where left turn lanes are not required
ROW 90’ wide
4. Local Streets
Local streets within REMU districts primarily serve residential development that varies in type, scale and
density. REMU encourages the provision of housing choices for a variety of different household sizes
and incomes. Local streets may be alley-loaded or front-loaded.
a.Local Street: 2-Lane, Residential
Table 17-6
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 1",Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 1",
Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 1",
Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 1",Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", Tab stops: 1",Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
180
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 9 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
Features Baseline Modifications allowed outright
Sidewalk 5’ wide 5’ – 8.5’ wide
Boulevard strip 8.5’ wide;
street trees req.
5’ – 8.5’ wide; allows variation of sidewalk
and boulevard strip widths; street trees req.
Parking lane 7’ wide
Bike lane not required
Drive lanes 8’ wide
ROW 60’ wide
b.Local Street: 2-Lane, Adjacent to Park
Table 17-7
Features Baseline Modifications allowed outright
Sidewalk 6’ wide
Boulevard strip 6.5’ wide;
street trees req.
5’ – 6.5’ wide; street trees required
Parking lane 7’ wide
Bike lane not required
Drive lanes 10’ wide 8’ – 10’ wide
ROW 60’ wide
2. Front-Loaded Local Streets
To ensure that front-loaded streets are community-oriented and pedestrian-friendly,
adjacent buildings, garages and driveways must comply with the following specific
standards of this Title.
• 18.16.070 Residential Garages
• 18.44.090.C.2.a Drive Access Requirements – Residential
• 18.46.010.D Stacking of Off-Street Parking Spaces
• 18.46.010.E No Parking Permitted in Required Front or Side Yards
• 18.46.010.F Parking Permitted in Rear Yards
3. Woonerfs: Woonerfs, or streets where pedestrians and cyclists have priority over
motorists, are encouraged on private drive accesses or properties in the REMU district.
Woonerfs may be permitted on public local streets or alleys through the subdivision
variance or PUD process.
4. Mews: Mews, or alleys lined with garages and living quarters above, are encouraged on
private drive access or properties in the REMU district. Mews may be permitted on
alleys through the subdivision variance or PUD process.
5. Shared Drive Accesses: Apply standards of 18.44.090.F (Shared Drive Access) and
18.80.2770 (Shared Access).
6. Alleys: Alleys are encouraged, but not required, in the REMU district.
a. Apply standards of 18.44.060.B (Street Improvement Standards - Alleys) where
applicable.
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
Formatted: Tab stops: 1", Left
181
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 10 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
E. Standards for Specific Development Types. The following standards are to be considered in the
review of development applications incorporating these development types.
1. Residential: Small-Lot Single-Household
a. Lot Coverage and Floor Area
Lot Coverage: 75% max.
Floor Area: allowable FAR 1.5:1, also apply 18.16.030.B
b. Lot Area and Width
Lot Area: 2500 sf min.
Lot Width: 25’ min.
c. Yards
1. Front yard:
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
• Adjacent to collector streets: 15’min. - 20’ max.
• Adjacent to local streets: 10’ min. - 15’ max.
2. Rear yard: 10’ min.
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
3. Side yard: 5’ min. (zero lot line exception)
• Allow “zero-lot line” development through shared use easements, zero lot line
agreements or placement of buildings on one or both of the side lot lines.
4. All vehicle entrances, oriented to the street, into garages shall be no closer than
20 feet to a property line, unless explicitly authorized otherwise under this title.
d. Building Height
Table 17-8
Residential Building Height Table
Roof Pitch Maximum Building Height in Feet
Less than 3:12 35
3:12 or greater but less than 6:12 38
6:12 or greater but less than 9:12 40
Equal to or greater than 9:12 42
e. Garages
Apply standards of 18.16.070 and 18.38.050 (except 18.38.050.H).
f. Signage
Apply standards of Chapter 18.52 with the same requirements as the R-3 district.
2. Residential: Single-Household
a. Lot Coverage and Floor Area
Lot Coverage: 50% max.
Floor Area: allowable FAR 1:1, also apply 18.16.030.B
b. Lot Area and Width
Area: 4000 sf min.
Additional area for accessory dwelling unit: 800 sf min.
Width: 40’ min.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0", First line: 0"
182
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 11 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
Width for accessory dwelling unit: 40’ min.
c. Yards
1. Front yard:
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
• Adjacent to collector streets: 15’min. - 20’ max.
• Adjacent to local streets: 10’ min. - 15’ max.
2. Rear yard: 15’ min.
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
3. Side yard: 5’ min. (zero lot line exception)
• Allow “zero-lot line” development through shared use easements or
placement of buildings on or near one of the side lot line.
4. All vehicle entrances, oriented to the street, into garages shall be no closer than
20 feet to a property line, unless explicitly authorized otherwise under this title.
d. Building Height
Table 17-9
Residential Building Height Table
Roof Pitch Maximum Building Height in Feet
Less than 3:12 35
3:12 or greater but less than 6:12 38
6:12 or greater but less than 9:12 40
Equal to or greater than 9:12 42
e. Garages
Apply standards of 18.16.070 and 18.38.050 (except 18.38.050.H).
f. Signage
Apply standards of Chapter 18.52 with the same requirements as the R-3 district.
gf. Additional Notes
1. Single Household units may incorporate home-based businesses at the ground
level with direct access from a public ROW or other accessible route. These
commercial uses are exempt from off-street parking requirements.
2. Developments may include individual retail uses at the ground level no greater
than 2,000sf in area, when located along the primary frontage. The first 2000 sf
of any nonresidential use in this development type is exempt from off-street
parking requirements. Parking lots for such uses shall not be permitted along
primary frontages. Apply standards of section 18.46.040.D for accessible parking
spaces.
3. Residential: Townhouse/ Townhouse Cluster
a. Lot Coverage and Floor Area
Lot Coverage: 75% max.
Floor Area: allowable FAR 2.5:1, also apply 18.16.030.B
b. Lot Area and Width
Lot Area: no minimum lot area required
Lot Width: 15.5’ min.
183
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 12 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
c. Yards
1. Front yard:
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 20’ min.
• Adjacent to collector streets: 15’min. - 20’ max.
• Adjacent to local streets: 10’ min. - 15’ max.
2. Rear yard: 10’ min.
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
3. Side yard – 5’ min. or 0’ for interior walls of townhouses
4. All vehicle entrances, oriented to the street, into garages shall be no closer than 20
feet to a property line, unless explicitly authorized otherwise under this title.
d. Building Height
Table 17-10
Residential Building Height Table
Roof Pitch Maximum Building Height in Feet
Less than 3:12 35
3:12 or greater but less than 6:12 38
6:12 or greater but less than 9:12 42
Equal to or greater than 9:12 44
e. Garages
To ensure that townhouses contribute to a community-oriented, pedestrian-friendly
streetscape, they must comply with the following specific standards of this Title.
1. 18.16.070 Residential Garages
2. 18.44.090.C.2.a Drive Access Requirements - Residential
3. 18.46.010.D Stacking of Off-Street Parking Spaces
4. 18.46.010.E No Parking Permitted in Required Front or Side Yards
5. 18.46.010.F Parking Permitted in Rear Yards
f. Signage
Apply standards of Chapter 18.52 with the same requirements as the R-4 district.
gf. Additional Notes
1. Portions of site development review applications within the REMU zone for
attached multi-family developments should be urban in character and may be
designed such that each dwelling unit has a ground level entry oriented to the
public realm, and sharing one or more walls with another dwelling unit.
2. Such units should be broadly consistent in scale and level of architectural detail,
but shall be designed to emphasize a distinction in individual dwelling units
through form, massing, articulation, color and other architectural means.
3. Townhouse units may incorporate home-based businesses at the ground level
with direct access from a public ROW or other accessible route. These
commercial uses are exempt from off-street parking requirements.
4. Developments incorporating townhouse units may include individual retail uses
at the ground level no greater than 2,000 sf in area, when located along the
primary frontage. The first 2000 sf of any nonresidential use in this development
type is exempt from off-street parking requirements. Parking lots for such uses
184
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 13 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
shall not be permitted along primary street frontages. Apply standards of
section 18.46.040.D for accessible parking spaces.
4. Residential: Stacked Flats & Congregate Housing FacilitiesTwo to Four
Household Dwellings, Group Living, and Apartments
a. Lot Coverage and Floor Area
Lot Coverage: 75% max. or 100% if a structured parking facility is provided that
accommodates all required parking
Floor Area: allowable FAR 4:1, also apply 18.16.030.B
b. Lot Area and Width:
Lot Area: Apply standards of 18.16.040.A, Table 16-2 (Lot Area Table), 18.40.105,
or
if a structured internal parking facility is provided, then required lot area may be
reduced by up to 50%.
Lot Width: Apply standards of 18.16.040.B, Table 16-3 (Lot Width Table)
c. Yards
1. Front yard:
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
• Adjacent to collector streets: 15’min. - 20’ max.
• Adjacent to local streets: 10’ min. - 15’ max.
2. Rear yard: 10’ min.
• Adjacent to arterial streets: 25’ min.
3. Side yard: 5’ min.
d. Building Height: 5 stories max.
e. Garages
To ensure that multiple household dwellings contribute to a community-oriented,
pedestrian-friendly streetscape, they must comply with the following specific
standards of this Title.
1. 18.16.070 Residential Garages
2. 18.44.090.C.2.a Drive Access Requirements - Residential
3. 18.46.010.D Stacking of Off-Street Parking Spaces
4. 18.46.010.E No Parking Permitted in Required Front or Side Yards
5. 18.46.010.F Parking Permitted in Rear Yards
f. Bicycle Parking. Covered bicycle parking shall be provided by all apartments and
group living development. The covered spaces shall be either 10 bicycle parking
spaces or one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking whichever is greater.
e. Signage
Apply standards of Chapter 18.52 with the same requirements as the R-4 district.
5. Residential: Mixed Use (Residential over Commercial)
a. Lot Coverage and Floor Area
Lot Coverage: 75% max. or 100% if a structured parking facility is provided that
accommodates all required parking
Floor Area: The minimum floor area requirements for each dwelling in all districts
shall be that area required by the City’s International Building Code. All vertical
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +
Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.25" + Indentat: 1.5"
185
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 14 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
mixed use development shall provide a minimum floor area ratio of not less than
0.75. “Floor area ratio” is the ratio attained by dividing the gross square feet of
building by gross land area of the lot(s) being redeveloped. A site plan for
development may show future phases of buildings to be used to demonstrate
compliance with the minimum floor area ratio standard
b. Lot Area and Width
Lot Area: all new mixed use lots shall have a minimum area adequate to provide
required setbacks (yards) and parking
Lot Width: no minimum width for new mixed use lots
c. Yards:
1. Minimum Yards. No minimum yards are required for the mixed-use district.
Easements for utilities or other special standards may require buildings to be placed
back from lot lines.
2. Maximum Setback. Buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street. At least 50%
of the total building frontage, which is oriented to the street, shall be placed within
10 feet of any minimum required separation from the property line.
3. Special Yard Requirements. All yards shall be subject to the provisions of
§18.30.060 Design Criteria and Development Standards in Entryway Corridors,
§18.38.060 Yard and Height Encroachments, Limitations and Exceptions,
§18.42.100 Watercourse Setback, §18.44.100 Street Vision Triangle, and §18.48.100
General Maintenance, BMC, when applicable.
d. Building Height:
Min. height: 2 stories
Max. height: Maximum building height shall be 5 stories
e. Signage
Apply standards of Chapter 18.52 with the same requirements as the UMU district.
ef. Special Parking Standards
1. Structured Parking Incentive. A floor area bonus of one square foot of
nonresidential up to a total of 50% of the gross building area of all uses may be
granted for each square foot of area of structured parking.
2. Parking for individual lots may be provided elsewhere within the district with a
shared parking agreement, provided that the overall parking ratio for the district
is comparable with documented parking ratios in developments of similar scale,
intensity of use, population density, and scope.
3. Bicycle Parking. Covered bicycle parking shall be provided by all congregate
housing projectsapartments, commercial development, and mixed use
development. The covered spaces shall be either 10 bicycle parking spaces or
one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking whichever is less.
g. Special Building Standards
1. Floor-to-Ceiling and Floor-to-Floor Heights
a. All commercial space provided on the ground level shall have a minimum
floor-to-ceiling height of 12 feet.
b. Residential uses shall have no limit to floor-to-ceiling or floor-to-floor
heights.
186
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 15 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
2. Buildings that contain commercial uses on the ground floor shall provide
transparency along at least 50% percent of the linear length of the commercial
façade. Transparency may be achieved with windows, building lobbies, building
entrances, display windows, or windows affording views into retail, office, or
lobby spaces. This requirement shall apply to both street fronts for buildings
located on corner lots.
3. Parking structures shall not have more than one two-way vehicle entrance or
two one-way vehicle entrances facing any public way. 50% of the ground floor
linear frontage along the primary street must be retail, commercial, office, civic,
residential, or live/work.
4. Building encroachments are permitted in accordance with Section 18.38.060,
subject to any and all applicable International Building Codes.
5. All projects in the REMU district are exempt from the Rear Yard Lot Coverage
requirements of 18.38.050.H
h. Special Lighting Standards: All building entrances, pathways, and other pedestrian
areas shall be lit with pedestrian-scale lighting (e.g., wall mounted, sidewalk lamps,
bollards, landscaping lighting, et cetera). that meet the requirements of Section
18.42.150. Alternative lighting meeting the intent of the design guidelines and other
criteria of this Title, may be approved through development review.
i. Natural Surveillance Standards: The proposed site layout, building, and landscape
design promote natural surveillance of the area by employees, visitors, and residents.
Physical features and activities should be oriented and designed in ways that
maximize the ability to see throughout the site. For example, window placement, the
use of front porches or stoops, use of low or see-through walls, and appropriate use
of landscaping and lighting can promote natural surveillance. Sight-obscuring shrubs
and walls should be avoided, except as necessary for buffering between commercial
uses and lower density residential districts, and then shall be minimized.
j. Public Space Standards: The REMU district is urban in nature. Public parks and
recreational areas are likewise expected to be urban in nature. This may include
elements such as plazas or other hardscaping, landscaping with planters and
furniture. Such areas may be more concentrated in size and development than
anticipated in a less urban setting. Public spaces shall be designed to facilitate distinct
types of activities to encourage consistent human presence and activity. The
requirements of this section shall give direction in the development of park plans
and the application of the standards of Chapter 18.50, BMC.
1. Public spaces shall be designed to:
a. Facilitate social interaction between and within groups;
b. Provide safe, pleasant, clean and convenient sitting spaces adaptable to
changing weather conditions;
c. Be attractive to multiple age groups,
d. Provide for multiple types of activities without conflicting;
e. Support organized activities;
f. Be visually distinctive and interesting;
g. Interconnect with other public and private spaces; and
h. Prioritize use by persons.
6. Nonresidential
a. Structures for authorized non-residential uses are permitted in the REMU district and
187
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 16 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
shall comply with the Intent and Purposes set forth in this chapter. Such uses in the
REMU district are intended to provide neighborhood services and local employment,
and complement existing and planned residential uses. Structures for nonresidential uses
are subject to the following restrictions:
b. The placement and building design of such structures should be integrated into an
overall site development plan.
c. Lot Coverage and Floor Area
Lot coverage: 100% if parking requirements are met by shared or off-site parking
facilities, or if a structured parking facility is provided that accommodates all
required parking.
Floor Area: min. FAR 0.5:1
d. Lot Area and Width:
1. All newly created lots shall have a minimum area adequate to provide for required
yards and parking. In the REMU district there is no minimum size for newly created
lots.
2. There is no minimum width for newly created lots within the REMU district.
e. Yards:
1. Minimum Yards. No minimum yards are required for nonresidential uses.
Easements for utilities or other special standards may require buildings to be placed
back from lot lines.
2. Maximum Setback. Buildings shall be oriented to the primary street. At least 50%
of the total building frontage, which is oriented to the street, shall be placed within
10 feet of any minimum required separation from the property line.
3. Special Yard Requirements. All yards shall be subject to the provisions of
§18.30.060 Design Criteria and Development Standards in Entryway Corridors,
§18.38.060 Yard and Height Encroachments, Limitations and Exceptions,
§18.42.100 Watercourse Setback, §18.44.100 Street Vision Triangle, and §18.48.100
General Maintenance, §18.48.050.C Parking Lot landscaping, 18.48.050.B Additional
Screening Requirements, BMC, when applicable.
f. Building Height:
Min. height: 15’ measured from the building’s primary street frontage
Max. height: 5 stories
Single-story, single-use commercial buildings in compliance with all other standards
of this chapter permitted.
g. Signage
Apply standards of Chapter 18.52 with the same requirements as the UMU district.
hg. Special Parking Standards:
1. Structured Parking Incentive. A floor area bonus of one square foot of
nonresidential up to a total of 50% of the gross building area of all uses may be
granted for each square foot of area of structured parking.
2. Parking for individual lots may be provided elsewhere within the district with a
shared parking agreement, provided that the overall parking ratio for the district
is comparable with documented parking ratios in developments of similar scale,
intensity of use, population density, and scope.
188
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 17 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
3. Bicycle Parking. Covered bicycle parking shall be provided by all student
housing projectsapartments, commercial development, and mixed use
development. The covered spaces shall be either 10 bicycle parking spaces or
one-half of the total minimum bicycle parking whichever is less.
ih. Special Building Standards:
1. Floor-to-Ceiling and Floor-to-Floor Heights
a. All commercial space provided on the ground level shall have a minimum
floor-to-ceiling height of 12 feet.
b. Residential uses shall have no limit to floor-to-ceiling or floor-to-floor
heights.
2. Buildings that contain commercial uses on the ground floor shall provide
transparency along at least 50% percent of the linear length of the building
façade fronting a public street. Transparency may be achieved with windows,
building lobbies, building entrances, display windows, or windows affording
views into retail, office, or lobby spaces. This requirement shall apply to both
street fronts for buildings located on corner lots.
3. Parking structures shall not have more than one two-way vehicle entrance or
two one-way vehicle entrances facing any public way. 50% of the ground floor
linear frontage along a primary street must be retail, commercial, office, civic,
residential, or live/work.
4. Building encroachments are permitted in accordance with Section 18.38.060,
subject to any and all applicable International Building Codes.
5. All projects in the REMU district are exempt from the Rear Yard Lot Coverage
requirements of 18.38.050.H
ji. Special Lighting Standards: All building entrances, pathways, and other pedestrian
areas shall be lit with pedestrian-scale lighting that meet the requirements of Section
18.42.150 (e.g., wall mounted, sidewalk lamps, bollards, landscaping lighting, et
cetera). Alternative lighting meeting the intent of the design guidelines and other
criteria of this Title, may be approved through site development review.
kj. Natural Surveillance Standards: The proposed site layout, building, and landscape
design promote natural surveillance of the area by employees, visitors, and residents.
Physical features and activities should be oriented and designed in ways that
maximize the ability to see throughout the site. For example, window placement, the
use of front porches or stoops, use of low or see-through walls, and appropriate use
of landscaping and lighting can promote natural surveillance. Sight-obscuring shrubs
and walls should be avoided, except as necessary for buffering between commercial
uses and lower density residential districts, and then shall be minimized.
jk. Public Space Standards: The REMU district is urban in nature. Public parks and
recreational areas are likewise expected to be urban in nature. This may include
elements such as plazas or other hardscaping, landscaping with planters and
furniture. Such areas may be more concentrated in size and development than
anticipated in a less urban setting. Public spaces shall be designed to facilitate distinct
types of activities to encourage consistent human presence and activity. The
requirements of this section shall give direction in the development of park plans
and the application of the standards of Chapter 18.50, BMC.
1. Public spaces shall be designed to:
a. Facilitate social interaction between and within groups;
189
2/4/2011Ordinances # __: Effective ___ 2010 18 of 18
10/24/201010/18/201010/11/2010
b. Provide safe, pleasant, clean and convenient sitting spaces adaptable to
changing weather conditions;
c. Be attractive to multiple age groups,
d. Provide for multiple types of activities without conflicting;
e. Support organized activities;
f. Be visually distinctive and interesting;
g. Interconnect with other public and private spaces; and
h. Prioritize use by persons.
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
ATTACHMENT C
221
Page 1 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2011
ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE
Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and ordered the
Recording Secretary to take attendance.
Members Present:
Ed Sypinski
Nathan Minnick
Nick Lieb
City Commission Liaison
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Tara Hastie, Recording Secretary
Guests Present:
Rob Pertzborn
Bob Emery
Susan Riggs
ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT
{Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission
and not scheduled on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker.}
Seeing there was no general public comment forthcoming, Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick closed
this portion of the meeting.
ITEM 3. ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2010
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to approve the minutes of December 7,
2010 as presented. The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem
Minnick, Mr. Lieb, and Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 4. PROJECT REVIEW
1. Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09241 – A Zone Code Amendment
requested by the applicant, RTR Holdings II and representatives Intrinsik
Architecture and GGLO, and requesting to revise local development regulations
222
Page 2 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011
to create a new zoning Residential Emphasis Mixed Use (REMU) district with
defined intent, uses, setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and special
development standards. The application also proposes to amend Chapter 18.36
Planned Unit Development Standards, Chapter 18.40 Standards for Specific Uses,
Chapter 18.46 Parking, Chapter 18.50 Park and Recreation Requirements,
Chapter 18.52 Signs, Chapter 18.54 Telecommunications, Chapter 18.80
Definitions to accommodate the uses, standards, and definitions provided in the
proposed REMU Zoning District. (Krueger)
Associate Planner Brian Krueger presented the Staff Report noting the proposal had been
previously reviewed by the Zoning Commission and substantial progress had been made on the
proposal. He noted Staff felt the proposal was ready for City Commission review and noted
there were some associated changes to the UDO that would need to be made to accommodate the
new zoning district which was typical to an amendment of the type proposed. He noted the
proposed amendments had been included in the packet materials distributed to the Commission.
Planner Krueger stated the proposal had been reviewed by the City Commission as a policy
discussion concerning issues identified during the initial Zoning Commission review. He stated
a final draft and Staff Report had been issued to the Zoning Commission in the hope that the
Zoning Commission would forward a formal recommendation to the City Commission for their
review on February 14, 2011.
Planner Krueger noted which items had changed since the original draft had been reviewed by
the Zoning Commission. He stated the tracking of the proposed mix of uses had been addressed
by retaining the maximum 30% nonresidential requirement which would be based upon the
amount of square footage in each Master Plan development. He stated any project over five
acres, instead of the originally proposed ten acres, would be subject to Master Plan or Planned
Unit Development review. He stated this would require that the details of any REMU
development would be brought forth on paper to see how the layout of the uses and their
functions would work together as well as to define the water/sewer capacities. He stated the
allowance for drive-thru and drive up uses had been questioned as to their compatibility but had
been found by the Commission to be acceptable permitted uses in the District. He stated the
Zoning Commission had reviewed the option of the inclusion of student/cooperative housing
which had been identified as a new use that would be good for Bozeman. The new use would be
“Group Living” and would include the specific definition; he added Staff was awaiting an
answer from the City Attorney’s office on the proposed language. He stated the PUD
performance points had been proposed for the overall PUD chapter and removed from the
REMU chapter to provide alternative methods for achieving performance points. He stated the
parking reductions being considered for the District had included the same parking reductions as
were included in the commercial nodes and would only apply to nonresidential uses. He stated
different street standards had also been originally proposed for the REMU District and the City
Engineering Department had recommended the street standards be reviewed on a case by case
basis with further development in the District. The final REMU draft defers to the
Transportation Plan and the Complete Streets Policy and the options available for each type of
roadway construction. He stated the alley requirement had been removed from the language as
the Commission had viewed the originally proposed language as too strong. He stated the
223
Page 3 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011
proposed signage language had been removed from the REMU District and included in the
signage requirements chapter of the UDO as Staff felt it would be more appropriate.
Planner Krueger listed the affected chapters in which language had been drafted to accommodate
the REMU District; mixed use projects were included in the PUD chapter, additional PUD
performance options, ADU requirements were included, Group Living use was proposed,
parking requirements for Group Living were proposed, parking reductions for the REMU were
proposed, parkland requirements for Group Living were included, the sign chapter was modified,
telecommunications chapter was modified to include REMU, and the definition of Group Living
was included. He stated the public hearing had been noticed and no additional public comment
had been received other than the letter of support received from the president of MSU. He stated
Staff was supportive of the project with the proposed amendments and attachments.
Mr. Sypinski asked for clarification of whether a Zone Map Amendment Application would be
required for each site to be zoned as a REMU District. Planner Krueger responded Mr. Sypinski
was correct and each site would need to propose the zoning designation for review and
recommendation by the Zoning Commission and approval by the City Commission. Mr.
Sypinski stated he wasn’t as concerned with parking reductions if the site was in proximity to the
university, but he felt the intent of the ordinance was to be more pedestrian friendly; he added his
concern was that people would be parking along the road if there weren’t enough parking
provided on site. He stated it seemed there were no uses that were disallowed in the proposed
REMU District and suggested if the intent was to find a different way to grow the community a
myriad of commercial options did not seem appropriate. Planner Krueger responded the variety
of uses was the intent of the District; larger parcels would have a longer development timeframe
and would require a larger availability of uses. He added uses for individual lots would be the
final stage of review for any of the Master Plan or Planned Unit Development proposals. He
cited the downtown core of Bozeman which included many of the uses proposed for the REMU
District; he did not think it was a coincidence that a diversity of uses was that which created
vibrancy and interest downtown.
Mr. Lieb asked how the group living classification had come about. Planner Krueger responded
Staff had been involved in discussions regarding types of housing that did not specifically fit into
the UDO. Mr. Lieb asked if the classification existed in other communities. Planner Krueger
responded the classification was addressed differently in different communities such as a more
intensive use category, such as the one proposed, or a relaxation of their definition of a
“household”. Mr. Lieb asked if the whole idea of Residential Mixed Use had been geared to a
larger size development. Planner Krueger responded Staff and the applicant felt that District
requirements could be applied to both large and small development parcels; the regulations could
accommodate both. Mr. Lieb asked if REMU would fit in with the urban infill development the
City wanted. Planner Krueger responded if it looked like REMU was working, consideration of
other REMU Districts would be appropriate. Mr. Lieb asked why the requirement for alleys had
been removed. Planner Krueger responded the language had not been removed, but had been
softened due to the vast types of uses to allow flexibility for potential development. Mr. Lieb
asked for clarification of the reduction to five acres for the PUD requirement. Planner Krueger
responded the original proposal had been for developments of 10 acres or more, but the 5 acre
requirement would be more flexible; he added a larger development would likely already be
224
Page 4 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011
proposed for the Master Plan or Planned Unit Development process.
Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick stated the proposal was designed to allow for different
percentages of commercial and residential developments as the market demands. Planner
Krueger responded Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick was correct and the overall maximum square
footage would be tracked by Staff. Mr. Lieb added that commercial development could occur
immediately and the residential development could be completed in ten years. Planner Krueger
responded that in many cases, more urban types of developers were looking for services before
they wanted to commit to buying a site while letting the market determine if residential units
would be built. The City may have to review the paradigm in 10-15 years but the Commission
had been supportive of the language as proposed with the maximum 30% nonresidential
requirement without concurrency.
Susan Riggs, Intrinsik Architecture, addressed the Zoning Commission. She introduced Rob
Pertzborn and Bob Emery who were also in attendance. She stated the applicant felt the
proposal had the quality to be good for Bozeman and the flexibility for the developer. She stated
they were excited to see the words on paper turned into an actual project and to see three years of
work and review completed.
Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick opened the item for public comment. Seeing none forthcoming
the public comment period was closed.
Mr. Lieb stated he was supportive of the District as proposed but he had some concerns about the
allowable parking reductions especially with regard to those sites in near proximity of the
university which is already experiencing parking difficulties. Mr. Lieb asked for clarification of
which parcels could apply for the REMU District zoning designation and if they would have to
make application for a growth policy amendment. Planner Krueger responded the Land Use
designation would dictate those locations and there would be areas that Growth Policy
Amendments would be required as well as areas that were already conducive to the zoning
designation. Mr. Lieb stated he could see a lot of developments wanting that designation.
Planner Krueger responded changes could be made to the District over time as issues arose.
Mr. Sypinski stated he had some reservations regarding a Zone Map Amendment and the
concurrence of build-out on the site. He stated Planning should work hand in glove with the
developers and not let the market make those decisions. He stated his biggest concerns had been
discussed earlier in the meeting. He stated the compliance with the adjacent neighborhoods and
the conflicts of the District with the character of the existing neighborhoods was another of his
concerns. He stated he did not feel the new zoning would lessen the congestions in the streets
and was concerned that the review criteria of the UDO were not being met. He stated he thought
the intent and purpose of the zoning had been to bring more people into the area and did not
meet the criteria of lessening congestion. He thanked Staff for their diligence in answering all
the questions of previously Board/Commission reviews. He thanked the developer/applicant for
their cooperation with the City.
Vice Chairperson Minnick stated he felt safeguards were in place and he liked the intention for
the sites to be market driven with options for the developer with regard to flexibility. He stated
225
Page 5 of 5
Zoning Commission Minutes – February 1, 2011
his reservations were similar to Mr. Sypinski and Mr. Lieb’s, but he liked to think the UDO
would protect the community from overcrowding issues. He stated he understood the intent of
the parking reductions for retail/offices and the proposed percentages but suggested smaller
reductions be considered for the proposed density of the development. He stated he was
supportive of the project as proposed.
Mr. Lieb stated he did not see overcrowding as an issue as the site would pull people from other
parts of the City. Mr. Sypinski clarified that the overcrowding review criteria had been intended
for infrastructure and public facilities. Mr. McHarg responded Mr. Sypinski was correct, and
added that the Zoning Commission should also consider public amenities and open space areas.
MOTION: Mr. Sypinski moved, Mr. Lieb seconded, to forward a recommendation of approval
to the City Commission for Zone Code Amendment Application #Z-09241 including the final
draft REMU language in the Staff Report and associated attachments.
Mr. Sypinski stated the Zoning Commission found the application to be in keeping with the
review criteria as set forth in the UDO as well as the Staff findings presented in the Staff Report.
The motion carried 3-0. Those voting aye being Chairperson Pro Tem Minnick, Mr. Lieb, and
Mr. Sypinski. Those voting nay being none.
ITEM 5. NEW BUSINESS
There were no items forthcoming.
ITEM 6. ADJOURNMENT
The Zoning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
___________________________________ ______________________________________
Nathan Minnick, Chairperson Pro Tem Tim McHarg, Planning Director
Zoning Commission Dept. of Planning & Community Development
City of Bozeman City of Bozeman
226
ATTACHMENT D
227
RESOLUTION #Z-09241
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION THAT WOULD
ADD CHAPTER 18.17 RESIDENTIAL EMPHASIS MIXED USE DISTRICT (REMU) A
NEW ZONING DISTRICT WITH DEFINED INTENT, USES, SETBACKS, LOT
COVERAGE, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND TO AMEND SECTION 18.36.090 TO ADD PUD PERFORMANCE POINT
OPTIONS; SECTION 18.36.090 TO ADD CRITERIA FOR MIXED USE PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS; TO SECTION 18.40.030.B TO ADD STANDARDS FOR
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN REMU; TO ADD SECTION 18.40.105
STANDARDS FOR GROUP LIVING; TO SECTION 18.46.040.A TABLE 46-2 TO ADD
A PARKING STANDARD FOR GROUP LIVING; TO SECTION 18.46.040.B TO
ALLOW PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR REMU NON RESIDENTIAL USES THE
SAME AS COMMERCIAL NODES; TO SECTION 18.50.020 TO ADD PARK AREA
REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITS FOR GROUP LIVING; TO SECTION 18.52.050 TO
SPECIFY EXEMPT SIGNS IN REMU; TO 18.52.060 TO SPECIFY SIGNS PERMITTED
IN REMU; TO 18.54.030 TO ADD STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITES IN REMU; AND TO SECTION 18.80.1275 TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR
GROUP LIVING.
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted zoning regulations and a zoning map and
subdivision regulations through its Unified Development Ordinance pursuant to Sections 76-2-
301, 76-2-302, and 76-3-501 M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-305, M.C.A. allows local governments to amend zoning
regulations if a public hearing is held and official notice is provided; and
WHEREAS, Section 76-2-307, M.C.A. states that the Zoning Commission must conduct
a public hearing and submit a report to the City Commission for all zoning regulation
amendment requests; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission has been created by Resolution of
the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Section 76-2-307, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance sets forth
the procedures and review criteria for amendments to the text of Title 18, Unified Development
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the RTR Holdings II applied for a Unified Development Ordinance text
amendment, pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance, to add
and modify multiple sections of the Unified Development Ordinance; and
228
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment request has been properly submitted, reviewed
and advertised in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Bozeman Unified Development
Ordinance and Title 76, Chapter 2, Part 3, M.C.A.; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint
public meeting on August 17, 2010, to informally discuss the proposed text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a public hearing on
September 7, 2010, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed
text amendment; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public submitted written or oral testimony on the
proposed text amendment and one public agency submitted written comment in favor of the
proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Commission discussed the offered comments and Staff’s
suggested response and the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held a second public hearing on
February 1, 2011, to formally receive and review all written and oral testimony on the proposed
text amendment; and
WHEREAS, no members of the public submitted additional written or oral testimony on
the proposed text amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Commission discussed the offered comments and Staff’s
suggested response and the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s recommendation and discussion amongst Zoning
Commission members, the Zoning Commission found that the application complied with the
Review Criteria;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission
officially recommends to the Bozeman City Commission that on a vote of 3 to 0 the City
Commission adopt the recommended amendments.
DATED THIS DAY OF , 2011, Resolution #Z-09241
_____________________________ ____________________________
Tim McHarg, Director Nathan Minnick, Chairperson
Dept. of Planning & Community Development Bozeman Zoning Commission
229
ATTACHMENT E
230
MONTANA
STATE UNIVERSITY
August t7,20tO
Mr. Jeff Krauss
Mayor
City of Bozeman
P.O. Box 1250
Bozeman, MT 59771
Dear Mayor Krauss:
Montana State University is supportive of the creation of a Residential Emphasis Mixed
Use Zoning District for the City of Bozeman (File #2-092 4\ for the project known as
the South University District. The creation of a flexible new neighborhood that strives
for a mix of well-designed student, faculty and staff housing with parks, integrated
bike paths and commercial services including retail, restaurants, offices, daycare,
hotels, clinics, laboratories and other commercial services would be a benefit to the
University as well as to the greater Bozeman community.
We look forward to continuing our conversations in regards the implementation of this
new zoning district on properties near Montana State University, with an emphasis on
safety and quality living in this area.
Sincerely,
WC/sm
cc: Brian Krueger, Associate Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
Offlce of the President
211 Montana Hall
P.O. Box L7242O
Bozeman, MT 597L7-242O
www.montana.edu
Tel (4061994-2341,
Fax (406) 994-1893
231