Today I’m setting out on a solo, self-supported mountain bike ride tracing a modified version of the Continental Divide Trail (CDT) – the hiking trail (not the more common Great Divide Mountain Bike Route). My goal is to contribute to defining a canonical, bike-legal version of the CDT and to set a realistic benchmark for how quickly a capable but non-elite rider can complete the route (ideally < 80 days).
Bozeman could learn a lot from Fayetteville, Arkansas. Fayetteville is a university town in the Ozarks that’s become an amenity destination for many of the same reasons as Bozeman (vibrant city, recreational opportunities, strong economy).
For example, Fayetteville’s development code requires that when a new business is approved next to a trail, the business has to build a connection to the trail. In the last six years Fayetteville has gone from being a bronze Bicycle Friendly Community to surpassing Bozeman and becoming a gold Bicycle Friendly Community.
Fayetteville has housing challenges of its own, but is taking proactive steps to address its housing shortage. This includes a new program of 30 permit-ready building designs that the City is developing and making freely available, including designs for ADUs and duplexes.
Last month Fayetteville’s mayor convened a Housing Crisis Task Force (similar in concept to Gov. Gianforte’s statewide housing task force) with representation from a broad swath of stakeholders. Bozeman could consider doing the same. It would be interesting to see what might happen if many of the vocal voices on housing issues in Bozeman were put on the same task force and charged with coming up with solutions.
Oh, and while we’re on the topic, did I mention that Fayetteville eliminated commercial parking minimums citywide back in 2015? As Sightline reports, this strategy has been a boon for local businesses and the city’s economy (and the meteoric rise in Fayetteville’s biking status is likely not entirely coincidental). I visited Fayetteville a year or so ago to check out the region’s famous mountain biking. I had no difficulty finding parking downtown—nor did I have any difficulty finding great restaurants and bakeries!
If looking for inspiration from peer communities in terms of reducing car dependency and practical housing solutions, Fayetteville offers ample inspiration.
A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code.
The purpose of a form-based code is to provide a clear and predictable picture about how a neighborhood or area will look and feel for the foreseeable future by regulating the mass and scale of new developments.
Rather than describing how a structure may be used, the new development code would focus on how a structure fits into the fabric of a neighborhood. Areas designated for residential use will still be areas designated for residential use. The essence of the Residential A district is that new construction must have, generally, speaking, the size and shape of a house. If you look closely in the historic neighborhoods north and south of downtown, you can find many, many examples of buildings that don’t stick out in any way but are actually contain five or more units.
Five-unit building on East Story Street
For example, the building above on Story Street looks like a house but is a five-plex. This five plex could not legally be created under current code but could under the new code (provided it was able to meet the additional parking requirements). The image below shows eight units, seamlessly tucked into the neighborhood on South Black Avenue.
Eight-unit building on South Black Avenue
Some have fixated on the maximum entitlement of eight units per building, but that’s not how the new code works. The new code says, “within a building envelope that has roughly the size and scale of a house, and that sits on a lot with a yard and sits back from the street a similar distance as other houses, residential housing may be built.” That could be one unit, or that could be a structure divided into multiple units, so long as the form fits the neighborhood. The maximum of eight units is almost theoretical, since the other constraints (height, lot coverage, parking requirements, etc.) would almost always be the actual constraining factors.
The “new” dimensional limits are, in fact, quite similar to existing dimensional limits. I expect that many of the same concerns about size and mass currently would likely be vocalized if the city was proposing to re-adopt its existing code. The table below provides a summary.
Existing R-1
Existing R-2
Existing R-3
Proposed R-A
Lot area per unit (min)
4,000 SF
2,500 SF
3,000 SF
None
Lot width (min)
50’
50’
40’
25’
Building coverage (max)
40%
40%
40%
40%
Front setback (min)
15’
15’
15’
10’
Building height (max)
40’
40’
46’
3 stories
Wall plate height (max)
None
None
None
25’
Building size (max)
10,000 SF
10,000 SF
10,000 SF
10,000 SF
Parking (min) – 1-bedroom unit
1 space
1 space
1 space
1 space
parking (min) – 2+ bedroom unit
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
2 spaces
The current approach to zoning essentially defines differing ratios of much land is required for each unit of housing. Higher zoning designations (e.g. R-4, R-5) have lower ratios of required land to housing units and allow additional types of housing (e.g. four-plexes are allowed in R-3 but not in R-2). A single housing unit could be a 500 SF shotgun house or a 5000 SF 10-bedroom mansion. Both require the same amount of land under our current code. As a result, because land is expensive, smaller types of housing have been effectively zoned out, with the exception of high-density apartment buildings.
While some missing middle housing types are allowed in R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 areas, they increasingly don’t economically pencil out to build. These smaller types of housing, e.g. duplexes, rowhouses, cottage courts, etc. are more affordable than single-family houses, and often provide a first-step on the equity ladder for a younger household, a downsizing option for older households, and rental options for young professionals.
This “zoning out” of smaller, more affordable types of housing (even while buildings which seem out of scale or out of character for the neighborhood get built) is what the new code is intended to address. For example, in R-1, a three-story 10-bedroom house could be built and rented out to ten college students but the same building envelop could not be legally used for a duplex for two families. Some neighbors in the Bon Ton and University districts have complained about the conversion of existing homes into college rentals, even while zoning prevents those existing houses from being converted into something that might be affordable to a younger family who might live in the neighborhood permanently.
Rather than a ratio of how much land is required for each housing unit, the new code describes allowable forms within a given zone, in terms of height, width, lot coverage, and space between units.
In the new “R-A” zone, buildings are expected to generally match the form of Bozeman’s traditional neighborhoods. Buildings should have the mass and appearance of houses, with lawns and yards, and space between lots. Building height is limited by the wall facing the street, which cannot exceed 25’ in height, and the footprint of the building cannot cover more than 40% of the lot. For a typical 5,000 SF lot, this means the maximum allowable building footprint would be 2,000 SF, and from the street you wouldn’t see a vertical wall of more than two-and-a-half stories in height.
The structure shown above is a 3750 SF (including basement) single-family house. Under the proposed code, this structure could contain four 950-SF two-bedroom units and look identical from the street. According to Zillow, the estimated monthly payment to purchase the pictured house would be $9,666 per month. Divided into four units, this cost would still be $2,400 per month. While $2,400 per month still isn’t affordable to many, that doesn’t support a counterfactual argument that, therefore, this house should be legally required to remain a single-family house.
The goal of the proposed code is to make it feasible and economical to develop “middle density” types of housing. It’s reasonable to expect that the resulting development patterns would resemble Bozeman’s traditional and historic neighborhoods, while creating attainable housing and opportunities for the next generation of Bozemanites in the process. While the new code promotes infill, it insists that infill must be gentle, hidden, or invisible.
If you’re supportive of Bozeman being a compact city that also offers opportunities for the next generation but have concerns about some of the specifics of the proposed code, please participate in the conversation by submitting comments to agenda@bozeman.net or attending an in-person event (e.g. the Community Development Board hearing in October). Nothing about the current proposed code is set in stone. Comments that adjust the code to make it fit and feel better (e.g. perhaps R-A should combine only R-1 and R-2 and limit height to two stories) will likely accomplish more than declarations of absolute opposition.
While headlines concerning the 2023 Montana Legislative session were dominated by efforts of the Republican supermajority to dismember Montana’s constitution and strip the rights of women and trans Montanans, there was at least one vibrantly bipartisan issue in Helena this year: implementing zoning reforms to clear obstacles to creating the housing needed for Montana to remain an affordable place to live, even at its experiences population growth. Numerous pro-housing bills passed the legislature and have been signed by the Governor with significant bipartisan support.
Here is a very brief synopsis of what these bills mean for Bozeman:
SB 245 legalized residential uses in all commercial districts. Effectively, Bozeman’s B-2 zones all just became B-2M. The bill also limits parking requirements to no more than 1 space per dwelling.
SB 528 legalized ADUs statewide. Bozeman already has one of the best ADU policies in the nation, so the only meaningful change is that ADUs may now be up to 1000 SF or 75% of the size of the primary dwelling.
SB 323 legalized duplexes in all residential zones. Effectively, Bozeman’s R-1 district just became R-2, and all of Bozeman’s R-2 districts can now have duplexes regardless of their lot size.
SB 382 overhauls the overall comprehensive planning process in a manner that should front load much of the planning process (more engagement up front, less yelling and screaming when a development comes forward that complies with adopted plans and zoning).
Overall, these are all great reforms that will promote the creation of housing, and, especially, more affordable and compact types of housing.
Implementing these bills provides a great opportunity for Bozeman to show statewide leadership in pre-housing zoning reform. Specific opportunities include:
When implementing SB 245, Bozeman should eliminate parking requirements in commercial districts entirely. (This doesn’t eliminate parking, it lets developers choose the right amount for their development; see the Cannery District for an example of what this looks like.)
When implementing SB 323, Bozeman should expand entitlements for triplex and fourplexes at the same time. R-1 now permits one additional unit due to state law. Add one additional allowable unit to R-2, R-3, and R-4. Eliminate all minimum lot sizes, recognizing that minimum lot widths and required setbacks (combined with lot coverage maximums and floor area ratio maximums) accomplish the same planning objectives.
Overall, in a legislative session dominated by vitriol and attacks on Montanans rights to a healthful environment and privacy, housing was a bright spot in an otherwise pretty awful legislative session.
The City of Bozeman’s Capital Improvement Plan item SIF009 allocates nearly a year’s worth of transportation budget to widening Kagy, justified by doomsday forecasts of apocalyptic traffic and delay. Not only has this traffic failed to materialize—the trend is actually going the opposite direction.
From an auto-centric engineering perspective, widening Kagy may have made sense based on the information available in 2016. Based on the best available traffic data since, there’s no longer any justification for widening the roadway.
Volumes up to 22,500 vehicles per day are considered “ideal management conditions” for a three lane facility. Based on the trend through 2015 (see graph below), it once seemed plausible that the three-lane capacity would be eclipsed within a few years of the project completion (see forecast, below). Based on current information, however, there is no suggestion that three lanes will be inadequate any time soon (if ever). Ever since Graf Street opened, the upward trend in traffic volumes on Kagy has completely disappeared.
Moreover, transportation pundits are predicting a permanent reduction in peak hour travel demand due to flexible work schedules and work from home impacts of the pandemic. This matters since peak hour volumes typically drive traffic engineering decisions (even the busiest roads usually have ample capacity all but a few hours per day).
Zooming in on the count data, we see that not only are total volumes down since Graf Street opened, but that pandemic-era peak hour traffic volumes (relative to total daily volumes) have declined by an even greater margin:
Compared to 2018, 2021 Kagy volumes between 3 – 5 pm are only ~70 vehicles per hour lower (6%), but 5 – 6 pm (peak hour) volumes are 212 vehicles lower (14%).
It’s clear in the data that improving our road network elsewhere coupled with reduced peak hour traffic from COVID-19 has eliminated any suggestion of need to widen Kagy to four lanes. When Opportunity Way connects to 19th it’s likely that volumes on Kagy may decline further. Nothing about current traffic volumes or trends suggest any sort of urgency for completing this project. Widening Kagy will make our system worse for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Kagy to reach campus. Based on current traffic counts, it’s not clear that widening Kagy would even benefit motorists.
At its CIP meeting on Tuesday, City Commission should send Kagy for another round of design (and to move it to the unscheduled column). In its place, the city should move forward design and construction of SIF157 and SIF158 (College Street reconstruction, to include sidewalks and bike lanes) and to send Church Street (SIF165) for preliminary design. These projects will move the needle in support of Bozeman’s goals for providing an effective transportation network for users of all modes.
