Building our Future Together - Development Code Update

Thank you for sharing your comments!

• Share Comment Opposing “By-Right” Daycare Centers in the R-A Residential District as proposed in the draft UDC on Facebook Share Comment Opposing “By-Right” Daycare Centers in the R-A Residential District as proposed in the draft UDC on Twitter Share Comment Opposing “By-Right” Daycare Centers in the R-A Residential District as proposed in the draft UDC on Linkedin Email Comment Opposing “By-Right” Daycare Centers in the R-A Residential District as proposed in the draft UDC link

  Comment Opposing “By-Right” Daycare Centers in the R-A Residential District as proposed in the draft UDC

  by mstone, 4 months ago

  I write to formally oppose the proposed November 2025 UDC draft change that would designate “Daycare center” as a permitted by-right ( or as a "principle") use in the R-A (Residential-A) zoning district. Allowing large daycare centers (serving 16 or more children) outright in low-density residential areas is contrary to sound planning practice and the City’s own zoning principles. My objections, grounded in recognized planning principles and comparative regulations, are outlined below.

  High-Intensity, Incompatible Impacts in Low-Density Neighborhoods

  Daycare centers are inherently higher-intensity, non-residential facilities that generate significantly more activity than a typical single-family home. They attract frequent pick-up/drop-off traffic... Continue reading

  I write to formally oppose the proposed November 2025 UDC draft change that would designate “Daycare center” as a permitted by-right ( or as a "principle") use in the R-A (Residential-A) zoning district. Allowing large daycare centers (serving 16 or more children) outright in low-density residential areas is contrary to sound planning practice and the City’s own zoning principles. My objections, grounded in recognized planning principles and comparative regulations, are outlined below.

  High-Intensity, Incompatible Impacts in Low-Density Neighborhoods

  Daycare centers are inherently higher-intensity, non-residential facilities that generate significantly more activity than a typical single-family home. They attract frequent pick-up/drop-off traffic, create parking demand, and produce noise from children at play, often for extended hours. Bozeman’s current code itself recognizes the extra intensity of such uses – for example, it requires one off-street parking space per staff member plus one per 15 children for a daycare center, far beyond a normal home’s needs. This reflects the substantial traffic and parking impacts these centers bring to a neighborhood. Noise is another concern: planning studies have long noted a “causal relationship between number of children and the amount of disturbance” experienced by nearby residents (see APA PAS Report 55). In a quiet R-A neighborhood of single-family homes, the daily concentration of vehicles and child noise from a full-scale daycare center would fundamentally alter the residential character and tranquility.

  It is telling that in a recent case in California, a planning commission denied a large daycare in a single-family area due to traffic, parking, and noise concerns raised by neighbors (see Citing concerns over noise and traffic, Planning Commission denies daycare center). While quality childcare is an important community asset, even a beneficial use can become a nuisance if sited in the wrong place – as Justice Sutherland famously wrote in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty, “a nuisance may be merely aright thing in the wrong place – like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.”(see Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)).A bustling daycare center belongs in an appropriately zoned “barnyard,” not dropped by-right into a quiet parlor of a low-density neighborhood.

  Best Practice: Daycares as Conditional/Special Uses in Residential Zones

  Professional planning guidance and common zoning practice advise that larger daycare facilities should undergo discretionary review before locating in residential areas. The American Planning Association’s Policy Guide on the Provision of Child Care (1997) explicitly supports permitting small home-based daycares by right but allowing larger facilities only with careful controls. Notably, California law (cited by APA) prohibits local zoning barriers for family daycares up to 6 children, but allows special use permits for facilities with up to 12 children, limiting review to issues of spacing, parking, traffic, and noise mitigation (see APA Policy Guide on the Provision of Child Care). Even Tucson, Arizona – a leader in childcare-friendly policy – permits small in-home daycare “by right” yet still requires a conditional use process for even small child-care centers in residential zones (see APA Policy Guide on the Provision of Child Care). The clear implication is that beyond a small scale, daycare centers warrant case-by-case scrutiny to ensure compatibility.

  Across the country, many municipalities reserve daycare centers in single-family districts as conditional or special uses rather than by-right uses. For example, Stamford, CT’s regulations state that “Child Day Care Centers in single-family zoning districts require a Special Permit from the Zoning Board” (see Stamford Child Care Permitting Guide 2025). In Green River, Wyoming, the city code provides that in the R-1 Single-Family zone “Child Care Centers are not listed as permitted uses and therefore may only be permitted through the Special Use Permit approval process” (see Green River Resolution). These examples echo the prevailing practice: larger daycare centers are only allowed subject to a public hearing and discretionary approval, typically with conditions attached to protect the neighborhood. Bozeman’s current ordinance similarly treats “Day care centers” (defined as 13+ children) as a Special Use in its low-density residential zones (R-S,R-1, R-2), while allowing them by right in higher-density or mixed-use zones. This long-standing approach acknowledges that such facilities, while needed, may not be appropriate on every residential street without tailored mitigation. It would be a serious step backwards to remove this safeguard now.

  Need for Discretionary Review to Ensure Compatibility and Public Input

  Eliminating the Special Use Permit (SUP) requirement for daycare centers in R-A means losing the crucial case-by-case review that protects neighborhood compatibility. The SUP process is not a mere formality –it is the mechanism by which the City evaluates site-specific factors like traffic circulation, on-site parking layout, pick-up/drop-off safety, outdoor play area location and screening, days/hours of operation, and noise attenuation. It also ensures neighbors are notified and heard in a public forum. By contrast, a “by-right” use can be established as-of-right with only administrative checks, with no hearing or ability to impose conditions beyond the base code standards. This is problematic for a use as potentially impactful as a daycare center. Without discretionary review, the City forfeits the ability to say “this particular residential lot or street cannot safely accommodate 20 drop-offs every morning,” or to require commonsense mitigation (such as staggered pickup times, sound fencing, or a traffic management plan) as conditions of approval.

  Fundamentally, discretionary review is how the City upholds public health, safety, and welfare on a localized level. In special use permit approvals, Bozeman – like most cities – must find that a proposed use “will not endanger public health or safety; will not injure the value of adjoining property; [and] will be in harmony with the area in which it is located” (see Green River Resolution). These are exactly the findings that a daycare proposal in a quiet neighborhood ought to meet. Removing the SUP process means no such findings can be made or enforced, undermining the City’s ability to protect neighbors from site-specific adverse impacts. It also silences public input that can surface local knowledge (for instance, that a particular corner already has dangerous traffic conflicts or that a nearby homeowner has concerns about noise at odd hours). In short, the SUP process is a vital mitigation tool. Stripping it away for daycare centers in R-A is unwarranted and unwise.

  Inconsistency with R-A District Intent and Neighborhood Protection Goals

  The proposed change allowing daycare centers outright in R-A is also inconsistent with the stated intent of the R-A zone and the broader goals of Bozeman’s development code. The Residential-A district is defined as an area “primarily to accommodate a variety of residential housing options” (single-family homes, ADUs, duplexes, etc.), with only “compatible…park, open space, utility, and day care uses” supplementing the residential uses. This language emphasizes compatibility – acknowledging that non-residential uses may be allowed only if they harmonize with the low-density residential character. A blanket “by-right” permission for large daycare centers fails this test. It presumes all such facilities are automatically compatible, when in reality compatibility depends on context (site size, street capacity, adjacent uses, etc.). The current Special Use Permit requirement is exactly how the City has ensured only compatible daycares operate in residential zones – by evaluating each proposal against criteria and potentially denying or conditioning those that would disrupt neighborhood character. By removing this discretionary filter, the City would be effectively abandoning the R-A district’s protective intent.

  Moreover, one of the fundamental aims of zoning is to protect established neighborhoods and the public interest from incompatible land use intrusions. The U.S. Supreme Court in Euclid upheld separating different uses on the basis that it bears a “substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare” (see Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)). While a daycare center is not an “offensive trade,” on a small quiet street it can pose analogous conflicts (traffic hazards, noise, parking overflow) that threaten residents’ safety and comfort if unmitigated. Good planning practices urge careful integration of such uses, not an unchecked allowance. The proposed change runs counter to Bozeman’s own goals of preserving neighborhood character and quality of life. It risks unintended consequences, such as de facto commercial operations popping up on residential blocks without proper oversight, potentially eroding residents’ trust in the zoning scheme meant to protect their environs.

  Conclusion: Retain Special Use Permit Oversight for Daycare Centers in R-A

  In summary, I urge the City to reject the draft provision permitting daycare centers by right in the R-A district. Larger childcare centers, while valuable to the community, behave more like community-commercial uses than home uses in their intensity of impacts. The Special Use Permit process is the proven tool to balance the benefits of such facilities with the need to safeguard neighborhood character, public safety, and residents’ peace. Removing that tool would be a disservice to thoughtful planning. It would deprive the City of oversight and compromise the compatibility standards that have long guided development in Bozeman’s residential districts.

  The better course is to continue treating daycare centers in low-density residential areas as a use requiring discretionary approval, subject to case-specific conditions and public input. This approach aligns with established planning practice and the City’s development objectives. By maintaining the Special Use Permit requirement, Bozeman can support the expansion of childcare services in a responsible, context-sensitive manner – ensuring that any new daycare centers truly fit our neighborhoods, rather than being imposed by-right regardless of consequences. I appreciate your consideration and urge you to uphold the integrity of the R-A zone by not allowing this proposed change to move forward.
  
  This is not the solution to the daycare problem in the community and to challenge this proposal is not a mere manifestation of NIMBYism. What has been proposed is simply not sound professional planning practice.
• Share Downtown density on Facebook Share Downtown density on Twitter Share Downtown density on Linkedin Email Downtown density link

  Downtown density

  by Gary Peterson, about 1 year ago
  The first thing planners should consider before adopting the misinformed view that supports the idea that we must increase the central city's density and build huge buildings with inadequate parking: What effect does it have on the neighborhood - the people that live there? This should be a separate concern from what is to be done about affordable housing. Again, the first consideration should be for the people who have homes and lives in those neighborhoods slated for disaster. Downtown density benefits paid planners/consultants, developers and construction companies. Seems clear, simple to understand. Then, planners can consider appropriate areas to... Continue reading

  The first thing planners should consider before adopting the misinformed view that supports the idea that we must increase the central city's density and build huge buildings with inadequate parking: What effect does it have on the neighborhood - the people that live there? This should be a separate concern from what is to be done about affordable housing. Again, the first consideration should be for the people who have homes and lives in those neighborhoods slated for disaster. Downtown density benefits paid planners/consultants, developers and construction companies. Seems clear, simple to understand. Then, planners can consider appropriate areas to do this intrusive building.
• Share Interactive map on Facebook Share Interactive map on Twitter Share Interactive map on Linkedin Email Interactive map link

  Interactive map

  by richard wolff, over 1 year ago
  the text for the legend is exremely small and impossible to read. Plewase consider enlarging the font

  the text for the legend is exremely small and impossible to read. Plewase consider enlarging the font
• Share I'm worried. on Facebook Share I'm worried. on Twitter Share I'm worried. on Linkedin Email I'm worried. link

  I'm worried.

  by Greg Beardslee, over 2 years ago

  My wife and I have lived in Bozeman for 43 years. Our children were born and raised here. Our daughter elected to stay here, have children and is a community member of great value. Our son can’t afford to come home. I hope that our home can be passed on to our children, that our dream won’t be wrecked by adjacent towers blocking sun and views. R2 zoning has protected our dream.

  Newcomers stream into Bozeman, continuing to drive property values and taxes skyward, inadvertently driving working class residents out, eroding the very fabric and soul of Bozeman. Established residents... Continue reading

  My wife and I have lived in Bozeman for 43 years. Our children were born and raised here. Our daughter elected to stay here, have children and is a community member of great value. Our son can’t afford to come home. I hope that our home can be passed on to our children, that our dream won’t be wrecked by adjacent towers blocking sun and views. R2 zoning has protected our dream.

  Newcomers stream into Bozeman, continuing to drive property values and taxes skyward, inadvertently driving working class residents out, eroding the very fabric and soul of Bozeman. Established residents, those who have invested their lives in their homes, friends, families and community are in shock at the proposed zoning changes. I am traumatized, angry, at times shaking mad over the proposed changes and how my home in Bozeman could be radically threatened. I’ve noted that the firm hired to study and promote these zoning changes isn’t local. They aren’t invested here, so they don’t care about the unintended consequences the changes will likely bring. By my observation, I truly wonder if the UDC board or the current city commission cares either.

  The UDC board meeting I attended tonight at City Hall allowed many city residents to speak passionately about the zoning proposal and their real fears that their neighborhoods will be ruined for naught. For well-moneyed people to build gigantic homes or speculative rental towers next door to them. Not needed workforce housing, or a step towards achieving the American dream of home ownership. The proposed zoning doesn’t help that at all. Throughout, the UDC board remained cold, aloof, and often condescending. This whole effort is effectively a top-down approach, presented at the 11^th hour to the public.

  I share all their worries. The sunlight-blocking vertical scale of what would be allowed to be built is obscene. All over town, our peace and joy of living here would be shattered. The impacts on our mental well-being would be profound. Bozeman would become a mean, nasty city. I see the proposed zoning changes as a declaration of war on us, and I’m mad about it! My wife and I scrimped and saved, bought a substandard cottage, raised a family and did some remodeling. We achieved our version of the American dream. Now it’s going to be put into jeopardy!

  Nothing about the zoning changes assures increased workforce housing. Everything about the zoning changes enables rapid erosion of neighborhood quality by promoting developer speculation. I can’t see the upside to this. There certainly isn’t any for us or our children.

  I have suggestions:

  Retain R2 zoning most everywhere. R2 allows both duplexes and ADUs. Find legal and economic incentives for homeowners to build ADUs, and to convert old failing homes into duplexes or duplex condos. This type of infill can be done subtlety without ruining neighborhoods. Density will eventually increase manyfold.

  Cautiously determine if some R1 zoned areas can be gracefully converted to R2.

  Reign in the maximum height requirements. Three stories are not appropriate everywhere, especially not in neighborhoods of smaller scale homes where the tall house would steal one neighbors view and the other’s sunlight.

  Consider that almost everyone still drives cars, so be sure to require off street parking. Parking space requirements can always be revisited in the future, at an appropriate time when residents walk, busses and taxis are common, and passenger rail service is restored.

  Allowing Greek houses in all zoning areas isn’t appropriate. Young people don’t always behave ideally. They cause disruptions at all hours. I’ve spent many sleepless nights on the phone with police, knocking on doors, pleading with drunken youth to “turn it down” or go home. My wife and I endured years of sleep being hijacked by parties. At times our work and attitudes suffered, and we weren’t always the best parents. Greek houses have their place, but not in my neighborhood, not in most neighborhoods!

  Allow manufactured homes and trailer parks. Incentivize developers to create pocket neighborhoods of manufactured homes within larger developments. Don’t hide them away but put them next to community parks and trails. Create lower development requirements for development of these neighborhoods. If any type of housing can be labeled affordable, it’s this category. Allow manufactured homes in old core neighborhoods, too.

  Bridger View development is a joke. How to make affordable homes barely affordable, that’s what it is. It was simply an ego exercise for architects. People need starter homes, like the small tract homes built after WWll, only up to modern codes. Boring neighborhood, but affordable! Do you even understand?? Bridger View was an opportunity, but the hand was poorly played.

  At the meeting, many people spoke about slowing down the process. I agree. It seems many things haven’t been considered. The new state requirements are many, and adoption of only five are required to be compliant. The proposed zoning changes are too radical, too disruptive, don’t address workforce housing or provide a path towards low-cost home ownership. The whole zoning proposal manages to miss the target, creating larger problems and fostering perhaps the greatest distrust of city government that Bozeman has ever had. More citizen participation is needed on the board. Some of the loudest and most passionate speakers would make thoughtful board members. There would be discomfort, but I bet the outcome would be less controversial and more effective.
• Share Stop destroying Bozeman in the name of unattainable "affordable housing" on Facebook Share Stop destroying Bozeman in the name of unattainable "affordable housing" on Twitter Share Stop destroying Bozeman in the name of unattainable "affordable housing" on Linkedin Email Stop destroying Bozeman in the name of unattainable "affordable housing" link

  Stop destroying Bozeman in the name of unattainable "affordable housing"

  by RP, over 2 years ago

  Writing as a frustrated Bozeman resident of 19+ years. The Bozeman City Commission seems to have completely sold out its long time residents to Developers and outside demand to destroy our farmlands and neighborhoods - in the name of “affordable housing” - which will NEVER come to fruition.

  
  

  No desirable town/city has EVER built their way to affordable housing. EVER. Name one. You can't. And they will destroy what makes this place special in their efforts to retroactively meet outside demand. There are so many building projects happening that Developers are importing foreign labor - creating even more housing competition!

  ... Continue reading

  Writing as a frustrated Bozeman resident of 19+ years. The Bozeman City Commission seems to have completely sold out its long time residents to Developers and outside demand to destroy our farmlands and neighborhoods - in the name of “affordable housing” - which will NEVER come to fruition.

  
  

  No desirable town/city has EVER built their way to affordable housing. EVER. Name one. You can't. And they will destroy what makes this place special in their efforts to retroactively meet outside demand. There are so many building projects happening that Developers are importing foreign labor - creating even more housing competition!

  
  

  Demand for the “last best place” will forever be greater than supply. So by building all these (horrendous Nexus) suburbs / apartment buildings on top of pristine open space, farm fields, and neighborhoods the Commission will create a city of “forever renters” whose fate will be at the whims of their rich landlords - without rent protections.

  
  

  In the new zoning plan, they’ve classified my neighborhood off College st. to be RA - where developers can build 120’ x 120’ apartment buildings and forever destroy my neighborhood’s character.

  
  

  The City must stop destroying open space, farmland, and neighborhoods for suburbs and apartment buildings to meet outside demand. The City will never overcome the arbitrage of people selling their $1M homes in Austin, Chicago, etc and moving here, out pricing locals.

  
  The City will never achieve affordability via supply without rent control and they will destroy the last best place in the process.

  
  

  Not to mention, the City knows we'll run out of water by 2030 at this rate!!!

  
  

  If they won't listen to the silent majority of Bozeman residents, let's replace them this fall.

  
  
• Share Against the changing of residential zoning. Pro - truly affordable housing. on Facebook Share Against the changing of residential zoning. Pro - truly affordable housing. on Twitter Share Against the changing of residential zoning. Pro - truly affordable housing. on Linkedin Email Against the changing of residential zoning. Pro - truly affordable housing. link

  Against the changing of residential zoning. Pro - truly affordable housing.

  by John Hosking, over 2 years ago

  Of the many ways that changes (development) have hurt the quality of life and community in Bozeman in the last decade: Changing, damaging or congesting our beautiful and human residential districts - would be the worst idea yet.

  This is also not an answer to housing that is actually affordable to service workers and young families. The city has not shown that it is capable of addressing that problem. Much less actively limiting growth because our quality of water will soon be in danger.

  Wake up. If you want to build a "tax value" urban center somewhere, don't ruin... Continue reading

  Of the many ways that changes (development) have hurt the quality of life and community in Bozeman in the last decade: Changing, damaging or congesting our beautiful and human residential districts - would be the worst idea yet.

  This is also not an answer to housing that is actually affordable to service workers and young families. The city has not shown that it is capable of addressing that problem. Much less actively limiting growth because our quality of water will soon be in danger.

  Wake up. If you want to build a "tax value" urban center somewhere, don't ruin Bozeman to do it. Build something new on some gravel field somewhere else.

  Truly - John Hosking
• Share confusing on Facebook Share confusing on Twitter Share confusing on Linkedin Email confusing link

  confusing

  by brian gallik, over 2 years ago

  Good Afternoon

  I work in the area of land use, along with planners and engineers. You website is confusing and not user friendly.

  Good Afternoon

  I work in the area of land use, along with planners and engineers. You website is confusing and not user friendly.
• Share all new construction on Facebook Share all new construction on Twitter Share all new construction on Linkedin Email all new construction link

  all new construction

  by Valerie , over 2 years ago
  There is so much new building going on.Why not require builders to post signs on the projects?

  There is so much new building going on.Why not require builders to post signs on the projects?
• Share Sustainability: Water and Open Space on Facebook Share Sustainability: Water and Open Space on Twitter Share Sustainability: Water and Open Space on Linkedin Email Sustainability: Water and Open Space link

  Sustainability: Water and Open Space

  by dcsalmo, over 3 years ago

  Allowing cash in lieu of water and cash in lieu of open space/parkland is not sustainable in the face of climate change. Hence, these allowances should be removed from the UDC, and each new development project, regardless of zoning, should be required to provide a combination of onsite water and onsite open space sufficient to completely offset the development's carbon footprint.

  Allowing cash in lieu of water and cash in lieu of open space/parkland is not sustainable in the face of climate change. Hence, these allowances should be removed from the UDC, and each new development project, regardless of zoning, should be required to provide a combination of onsite water and onsite open space sufficient to completely offset the development's carbon footprint.
• Share Sustainability Measures on Facebook Share Sustainability Measures on Twitter Share Sustainability Measures on Linkedin Email Sustainability Measures link

  Sustainability Measures

  by JamieRD, over 3 years ago

  On the topic of sustainability, I’d like to see water resources addressed in the UDC codes, given we are rapidly nearing a water crisis in Bozeman. I’d like to see requirements added to the UDC for water catchment systems, grey water use, and landscaping with drought tolerant plants, rain gardens, permeable surfaces, etc. The city has a great incentive program for homeowners, but we need to implement strict water wise requirements from the start with building codes.
  
  In addition to electric vehicle charging station requirements in new buildings, I would also like to see requirements for rooftop solar built into... Continue reading

  On the topic of sustainability, I’d like to see water resources addressed in the UDC codes, given we are rapidly nearing a water crisis in Bozeman. I’d like to see requirements added to the UDC for water catchment systems, grey water use, and landscaping with drought tolerant plants, rain gardens, permeable surfaces, etc. The city has a great incentive program for homeowners, but we need to implement strict water wise requirements from the start with building codes.
  
  In addition to electric vehicle charging station requirements in new buildings, I would also like to see requirements for rooftop solar built into UDC codes. We need to move our entire community into more renewable energy sources. Requiring rooftop solar will help us avoid the need for solar fields later, allowing us to keep our fields open for agriculture.
  
  Finally, we need to create protected biking systems to encourage more people to bike around town rather than drive. Not only will biking support our climate goals, but a strong biking culture has been proven to support small businesses. On bikes, people are more likely to make multiple stops and frequent downtown urban areas, rather than big box stores. Bozeman is an active, outdoorsy town. Let’s channel our “Mountains to Main Street” culture into our mode of transportation! We need our building codes and city planning efforts to take the lead in prioritizing the creation of safe in-town biking routes.

  Thanks!