If widening Kagy ever made sense, it certainly doesn’t now

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.

The 2007 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (page 9-3) includes a table of target capacities for roadways of various types:

Roadway Capacities Table

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.

Kagy blvd traffic volume forecast

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:

Kagy Blvd Hourly Traffic Counts

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. 

Yes In My Backyard Act

U.S. Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i) introduced the Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) Act to shed light on discriminatory land use policies and encourage localities to cut burdensome regulations. Instead of adopting inclusive land use policies that allow citizens of all income levels, backgrounds, and identities to live, work, and flourish in Bozeman, the city has erected paper walls of regulations that negatively affect and sometimes discriminate against low- and middle-income city residents. The YIMBY Act would require Bozeman and other cities receiving federal funding for housing to go on the record with why they are not adopting specific pro-affordability and anti-discriminatory housing policies.

Let’s see how Bozeman stacks up against the specific policies identified in the YIMBY Act:

(A) Enacting high-density single-family and multifamily zoning

B

The good news is that Bozeman has several good zoning designations for high density (R-5, B-2M, B3, etc.). The bad news is that these zoning areas apply to less than 5% of Bozeman’s total area. Elsewhere in the city, due to lot size minimums, off-street parking requirements, parks requirements, and other restrictions it is difficult to achieve densities higher than 8 units per acre net in Bozeman. The Bridger View Subdivision is a fantastic exception to this rule (achieving a net density nearly twice that of other comparable subdivisions)—but this achievement was only possible with 18 departures from existing code.

(B) Expanding by-right multifamily zoned areas

D

Although most newly annexed areas are zoned for multifamily, the City of Bozeman has never initiated action to expand multifamily zoning in existing areas. (In a few instances, specific areas have been upzoned at the request of a developer).

(C) Allowing duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes in areas zoned primarily for single-family residential homes

F

38% of Bozeman’s existing residential land is set aside as the exclusive domain of single-family homes. Due to lot size minimums and other density restrictions in reality this number is closer to 50%. No duplexes, triplexes, or fourplexes allowed (except those those created prior to Bozeman’s modern zoning laws).

(D) Allowing manufactured homes in areas zoned primarily for single-family residential homes

A

Manufactured homes on permanent foundations are allowed in all residential areas.

(E) Allowing multifamily development in retail, office, and light manufacturing zones

A

Commercial and manufacturing zones currently allow multifamily development on upper floors.

(F) Allowing single-room occupancy development wherever multifamily housing is allowed

C

Although Bozeman allows single-room occupancy units under its “community residential facilities” definition, this designation is tied to off-street parking minimums, parkland dedication requirements, and lot size minimums that substantially limit the feasibility of single-room occupancy development.

(G) Reducing minimum lot size

D

In 2019 Bozeman reduced its minimum lot sizes from very large (5000 SF) to merely large (4000 SF) for (literally) 99% of residential areas. (Houston’s minimum, for context, is 1400 SF.) Lot size minimums are also enforced by other indirect minimums, including width minimums, large required setbacks, lot area coverage maximums, floor area ratio maximums, and off-street parking requirements. The research is clear: minimum lot sizes force people to buy more land than they want and drive up housing costs.

(H) Ensuring historic preservation requirements and other land use policies or requirements are coordinated to encourage creation of housing in historic buildings and historic districts

D

Bozeman’s NCOD is a significant barrier to the creation of housing in Bozeman’s historic district.

(I) Increasing the allowable floor area ratio in multifamily housing areas

C

Bozeman’s floor area ratios are higher in areas zoned for multifamily housing, but are pegged to zoning district not housing type.

(J) Creating transit-oriented development zones

F

To date, Bozeman has not engaged in transit planning as part of its transportation system or land use planning. Bozeman should identify future high-frequency transit corridors and then upzone along these corridors.

(K) Streamlining or shortening permitting processes and timelines, including through one-stop and parallel-process permitting

F

Bozeman’s permitting is notoriously slow. Best case scenario it takes eight weeks in Bozeman to obtain the same building permit that Belgrade issues in one week. In practice, subdivision and building permits can be mired in review for years. Parallel-process permitting could dramatically reduce permitting timelines.

(L) Eliminating or reducing off-street parking requirements

F

Bozeman’s off-street parking minimums are very high and one of the most commonly cited barriers to development in the city. Parking minimums force people to own more parking than they want, increase housing prices, and encourage driving over other modes.

(M) Ensuring impact and utility investment fees accurately reflect required infrastructure needs and related impacts on housing affordability are otherwise mitigated

A

By law, Bozeman cannot charge impact fees in excess of needed infrastructure. The City also gives breaks to lower fees for infill projects.

(N) Allowing prefabricated construction

B

Prefabricated housing is allowed so long as prefabricated housing meets certain standards of looking like other housing.

(O) Reducing or eliminating minimum unit square footage requirements

A

Bozeman’s minimum unit square footage is based on the International Building Code. Current limits are 120 SF. (However, reductions in lot size minimums would be necessary to make small units actually viable to construct and bring to market.)

(P) Allowing the conversion of office units to apartments

B

Office in Residential Office zones can be converted to apartments. In other commercial areas where offices are permitted residential units are typically limited only to upper stories.

(Q) Allowing the subdivision of single-family homes into duplexes

F

Subdivision of single-family homes into duplexes is explicitly prohibited in R-S and R-1 zones. In practice, off-street parking requirments and lot size minimums prohibit subdivision where otherwise allowed by zoning.

(R) Allowing accessory dwelling units, including detached accessory dwelling units, on all lots with single-family homes

C

Bozeman currently allows ADUs by right in all residential zones but stops well short of progressive ADU policies implemented in other cities such as on-demand permitting of pre-approved plan sets or allowing two ADUs per parcel. Bozeman’s otherwise reasonable ADU policies suffer from poison pill requirements such as lot size, lot width, and paved off-street parking minimums for ADUs.

(S) Establishing density bonuses

D

Bozeman does offer density bonuses—but to the best of my knowledge no developer has ever voluntarily used Bozeman’s density bonuses. Density bonuses that never get used on account of being too watered down or difficult to exercise are worse than no density bonuses at all.

(T) Eliminating or relaxing residential property height limitations

A

Bozeman relaxed and streamlined its height limitations in May of 2021.

(U) Using property tax abatements to enable higher density and mixed-income communities

D

Bozeman does not currently use tax abatements to enable higher density and mixed-income communities. It’s unclear if state law would allow the city to do so.

(V) Donating vacant land for affordable housing development

—

The Bridger View subdivision is a great example of how effective this strategy can be (though donated by the Trust for Public Land, rather than the City of Bozeman). Bozeman should allow underutilized parkland to be converted to housing (that meets requirements for Affordability). Gallatin County should strongly consider relocating the fairgrounds and converting the existing site into a community land for permanently affordable housing.

The Final Word

The bad news is that Bozeman’s housing policy is littered with discriminatory and anti-development policies. The good news is that this recognition is a call to action (not a cause for despair). All of these policies are within our power to change. Many of these policies may be specifically called out in Bozeman’s pending consultant-led code audit. If we need a little help rewriting our code to be more equitable and pro-housing, the Biden administration is advancing a $300 million annual grant funding program to help cities and town like Bozeman remove zoning barriers to the construction of affordable housing.

Can’t do Infill – Lot Width Minimums

I’m highly interested in building some sort of infill project in the northeast neighborhood. My primary intention is add additional units of housing (in part to offset my own guilt about being “part of the problem”). I also just think it would be neat to build something add something to the neighborhood and community.

The only problem is: Bozeman’s code makes infill development all but impossible. I’ve investigated a half dozen opportunities in the past year, and each time there’s some “gotcha” in the development code that ruins otherwise great infill opportunities. I thought maybe I’d document some of these, so if/when Bozeman decides to get serious about supporting infill, I can provide some reasoned suggestions with examples.

A 21,000 SF property on Church Avenue just went on the market. That’s a half-acre of land, listed just below $1m. It’s zoned R2, so right off the bat we’re thinking a theoretical maximum density of three 7000 SF lots, each with a duplex and ADU. Housing units before: 1. Housing units after: 9. Sweet!

Only, there’s a little problem: the lot is only 118 feet wide.

Why is that a problem? Although many of the existing lots on Church Street are only 30′ wide, the City of Bozeman (in an apparent effort to limit infill and keep housing prices sky-high) requires a minimum width of 40′ (when a lot has alley access; 50′ otherwise).

Note, the lot width minimum is in addition to other lot geometry requirements:

  • Lot size minimums
  • Setback requirements (15′ up front, 20′ out back, 5′ on each side),
  • Lot-area coverage maximums
  • Floor area ratio maximums
  • Off-street parking minimums

These multitudinous requirements all effectively do the same thing in different ways: impose a minimum on the size of a lot.

And, thanks to the City of Bozeman’s “white glove” approach to variances, a subdivision plan with two 40′ lots and one 38′ lot would never fly (the 38′ lot would be a “self-imposed hardship and therefore ineligible for any sort of exception to the rules”).

Assuming building costs of 2.5x land costs, a $1m lot implies $2.5m in improvements. That could be one $3.5m single family house on one lot, two $1.75m single family houses, or a maximum of two duplexes and two ADUs with an average cost of $583k. Without the lot width minimum, we could get nine units at an average cost of $388k per unit. While $400k isn’t cheap, it’s within reach of many Bozeman middle class families, in a way that $600k just isn’t.

If we’re going to have lot size minimums and setbacks, we don’t need lot width minimums. Having both subjects potential infill to double jeopardy. In this situation, with a half acre of available land, minimum lot widths mean that the smallest possible subdivision of this lot is two 10,500 SF lots. If we’re going to have affordable housing and compact neighborhoods, we’re going to need to allow small lots!

New Bicycle Crossing at Peach and Rouse Completely Unacceptable

The Montana Department of Transportation has recently reconstructed the Rouse Avenue corridor. At the intersection of Peach Street and Rouse, MDT has taken away the existing bike lanes on Peach Street to install two additional vehicle lanes.

Strava’s Global Heatmap shows that Peach Street is the most significant E-W corridor for cyclists anywhere East of 19th Avenue. This is an essential connection for cyclists to access the businesses located in the Northeast Neighborhood and connection to our regional trail system, including the path to the M.

This situation is dangerous for cyclists and completely unacceptable.

Any intersection that requires cyclists to ride in mixed traffic fails to meet a standard of “appropriate for all ages and abilities” and fails to support Bozeman’s goal of improving multimodal accessibility.

Given the importance of this corridor, the City of Bozeman should not only fix this intersection, but should improve the safety and comfort of Peach Street for cyclists by removing the seldom-used parking on the north curb of Peach Street and installing proper buffered or separated bike lanes from 7th to Rouse.

Source

This intersection must be fixed to provide safe passage for cyclists on Peach Street to cross Rouse Avenue. Removing car storage for a half-dozen vehicles to improve the safety and comfort of a heavily used bicycle corridor at the same time just makes sense.

Summer Reading List

Interested in some light summer reading? Consider picking up a copy of Bozeman’s Unified Development Code! Carve out some time, though—it’s longer than Kafka’s The Trial and The Castle combined. Critics are calling Bozeman’s little book of rules:

“A haunting chronicle of stifling and inhuman bureaucracy—Kafkaesque in the fullest sense.”

“Essential reading for affordability advocates.”

“Byzantine!”

Contained within is the secret to understanding why it’s so hard to build anything in Bozeman, why generic “Anywhere USA” buildings are easier to build than anything with character, and a big part of why housing in Bozeman is suddenly astonishingly expensive.

List of popular books by reading length(Reading list adapted from howlongtoread.com)