Bozeman panel narrows UDC options on building mass and scale; board votes to drop FAR and residential lot‑area minimums

The Bozeman Community Development Board continued a multi‑year update of the city’s Unified Development Code on Monday, focusing on tools to address building mass and scale. Staff presented a suite of options — setbacks, lot‑area minimums, height measurements, wall‑plate limits, step‑backs, floor‑area ratio (FAR), and building‑width caps — and the board took early policy votes on two items: to recommend removing FAR as a maximum constraint citywide and to recommend eliminating minimum lot‑area requirements for residential lots.

Chris Saunders, city planning staff leading the presentation, said the conversation is about choosing the right regulatory “tool” — not final numeric values — and emphasized that tools should work across the city’s variety of zones. Saunders said the draft UDC currently measures some residential height allowances in stories (with per‑story caps) and enforces a 15‑foot minimum ground‑floor height for many commercial uses; staff proposed keeping the stories framework but discussing how to cap per‑story heights.

After extensive discussion of pros and cons — including construction methods, energy systems, and design alternatives — the board voted on two motions. Member Jason Delmeux moved that the board recommend that the City Commission abandon floor area ratio (FAR) as a maximum limit for development and rely instead on other constraints such as setbacks, maximum lot coverage, minimum open space, and required parking; the motion passed on a roll call vote that recorded approval by the full board. Delmeux subsequently moved that the board recommend removing minimum lot‑area regulations for residential zones and let other constraints (setbacks, lot coverage, open space) govern development; that motion was amended on the floor to apply to residential lots and passed 5–1.

Why members supported removing FAR and minimum lot area: staff and several board members said FAR had produced limited real‑world benefit in Bozeman and overlapped with other dimensional controls (setbacks and lot coverage), while minimum lot area was redundant with dimensional standards and discouraged flexible, smaller‑lot housing forms. In several exchanges board members and staff noted that other code elements — setbacks, building‑width caps, lot coverage limits, and neighborhood‑specific transition standards — could be refined to address resident concerns about “oversized” buildings without an FAR framework that can be complex to administer.

Major technical topics discussed: - Height measurement: staff proposed measuring in stories rather than a single fixed number of feet to improve public understanding, with per‑story caps to prevent extreme outcomes. The board discussed different per‑story floor‑to‑floor heights for residential and commercial buildings. Saunders said the draft code currently caps individual story height at 15 feet for some uses, a number staff is exploring whether to reduce for upper residential stories. - Wall‑plate height: staff presented a “wall‑plate” limit (grade to wall‑plate intersection) as a way to reduce the perceived vertical mass of roofs while preserving design flexibility and dormer use. - Step‑backs and planes: the board discussed angular planes (45‑degree) and stepped plane alternatives (e.g., 10‑ft step‑back at the fourth floor). Staff said step‑backs could be applied citywide, by district, or via overlay, and cautioned that design details influence construction cost. - Building width and caps: staff proposed maximum building widths in some districts (125–250 feet for commercial) and an apartment‑building cap in residential districts (10,000 sq ft proposed for certain uses).

Public testimony during the code discussion included architects, renters and housing advocates urging retention or expansion of middle‑housing capacity. Mayagotzsche, a renter, urged permitting a wide range of middle housing types and warned that strict unit caps and overly tight massing rules would exclude historically common attached and multi‑unit forms. Architect Eric Bonnet and housing nonprofit Forward Montana urged aligning zoning with building code realities (for example, supporting 3‑story single‑stair “middle” housing in RB districts) and exploring graduated square‑foot caps or removing maximum unit caps to enable more housing choices.

Board members also raised practical implementation questions: how step‑backs affect structural systems and costs, whether incentives would be needed to achieve preferred design outcomes, how new state law (SB 243) and recent changes to administrative approvals may affect public notice and appeal procedures, and how to apply different standards in established infill neighborhoods versus new greenfield development.

Next steps: the board deferred additional decisions and asked staff to return with more detailed options, technical input from architects and builders on feasible per‑story heights, and illustrations of how proposed tools would play out on representative sites. The board scheduled further discussion for its June 16 meeting.

—

Ending note: the board’s votes to recommend removing FAR as a maximum and to remove minimum lot‑area requirements for residential lots will be transmitted to staff and carried forward to the City Commission and subsequent UDC drafts; they are policy recommendations, not final code changes until the commission acts.