HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-09-25 Public Comment - B. MacFawn - Centennial Park Neighborhood Conservation in ActionFrom:Beth MacFawn
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Centennial Park Neighborhood Conservation in Action
Date:Tuesday, April 8, 2025 5:38:27 PM
Attachments:Centennial Park Neighborhood Zoning Proposal 4.7.25.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Community Development Director Erin George, Mayor Terry Cunningham, Deputy Mayor
Joey Morrison, Commissioner Emma Bode, Commissioner Douglas Fischer, and Commissioner
Jen Madgic,
I am submitting this proposal to the Community Development Department and the
Bozeman City Commission. I ask for your full consideration of the information provided
herein, including a petition signed by 148 Bozeman residents thus far (Appendix B).
Please find the attached document.
Thank you for your consideration,
Beth MacFawn
605 N. Tracy Ave.
Bozeman
April 8, 2025
To: Community Development Director Erin George, Mayor Terry Cunningham, Deputy Mayor
Joey Morrison, Commissioner Emma Bode, Commissioner Douglas Fischer, and Commissioner
Jen Madgic.
From: Bozeman resident co-authors and reviewers (listed in last name alphabetical order):
Zoe Hallowell, 5 East Aspen Street
Angie Kociolek, 620 North Tracy Avenue
Dan Krza, 620 North Tracy Avenue
Beth MacFawn, 605 North Tracy Avenue
Jane Mangold, 820 North Tracy Avenue
Susie Mathre, 624 North Tracy Avenue
Paul Rishel, 617 North Black Avenue
Christopher Spogis, 613 North Tracy Avenue
Mary Ellen Spogis, 613 North Tracy Avenue
Hadley Stonecipher, 604 N Tracy Avenue
Respectfully, we submit this proposal to the Community Development Department and the
Bozeman City Commission. We ask for your full consideration of the information provided
herein, including a petition signed by 148 Bozeman residents thus far (Appendix B).
Specifically, we request that the Centennial Park Neighborhood currently zoned as R-4
become R-A rather than R-C as is proposed in the updated version of the Unified
Development Code (UDC).
Cover image: View from the southeast corner of Centennial Park looking east. Note the
extensive and diverse tree canopy cover coexisting with a mix of housing types, including
multi-family properties.
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………..3
Our Neighborhood………………………………………………………………………….4
Neighborhood Values………………………………………………………………………6
Vision Statement……………………………………………………………………………7
Current and Proposed Zoning…………………………………………………………….8
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District…………………………………………..10
Problem Statement………………………………………………………………………..12
Proposed Solution…………………………………………………………………………14
Supporting Research……………………………………………………………………...17
Neighborhood Character
Centennial Park Neighborhood Inventory Data
UDC-Informed Block Case Study
UDC-Informed Lot Case Study
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….25
Next Steps………………………………………………………………………………….25
Appendix A - Outreach/Engagement Timeline
Appendix B - Record of Centennial Park Neighborhood Petition Signatures
Appendix C - Additional Centennial Park Neighborhood Snapshots
2
Executive Summary
The City of Bozeman is in the process of updating its Unified Development Code (UDC).
Engaged residents have learned a lot in the process – both through structured City engagement
efforts and independent research. The Community Development Department has invited the
public to submit zoning change requests to be acted upon as part of the UDC Update. This
resident-led proposal serves as our public comment and zoning change request.
While all existing neighborhoods across the City deserve predictability and compatibility during
the course of re-development, neighborhoods within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District have added protections and requirements. These agreed upon and formalized
protections are intended to preserve existing historic buildings, districts, and their settings
(including mature trees and shrubs).
Centennial Park Neighborhood Conservation in Action: A Resident-led Proposal includes
descriptive narratives about context, character, values and vision, and, ultimately, quality of life
as we know it. Collaborative research (in which the City was a partner) is included as supportive
documentation for this zoning change proposal. Finally, we include a timeline and description of
our outreach efforts culminating in 148 petition signatures and 54% property owner support for a
zoning change.
3
Our Neighborhood
The Centennial Park Neighborhood is in the Imes Addition, a subarea of Bozeman’s formally
recognized Northeast Neighborhood Association (NENA), and proudly lies within the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Cherished local landmarks – Centennial
Park, North Grand Fields, and the Bozeman Senior Center – make this neighborhood an
activated space for residents from across our City. In addition, our neighborhood serves as the
gateway to, and overflow parking for, the Gallatin County Fairgrounds immediately to the north.
Centennial Park neighbors span multiple generations and diverse socio-economic backgrounds.
Together, our homes create a desirable mix of eclectic and comparatively affordable housing
types, including examples of historic architecture.
People love that our neighborhood is a pleasant place in which to walk and has what is often
referred to as “character.” We enjoy views of the Bridger Mountain Range from Centennial Park
Hill, human-scale architecture amongst interesting alleys and boulevards, mature public and
private trees and shrubs, and bountiful flower and vegetable gardens – some of which are
award-winning (Figure 1).
Figure 1. In 2016, 624 North Tracy Avenue received an Award for Excellence in Sculptured Landscape from the
Bozeman Beautification Advisory Board.
4
The Centennial Park Neighborhood extends from the south side of Tamarack Street to the north
side of Peach Street (transitions from East to West at North Tracy Avenue) and from the east
side of North 3rd Avenue to the west side of North Bozeman Avenue (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Centennial Park
Neighborhood
zoning parcel,
screenshot from
Google Maps.
City blocks
numbered 1-11
tie to our
neighborhood
outreach efforts.
Life is good in the Centennial Park neighborhood. Indeed, according to Maddy Pope of the Trust
for Public Land, our neighborhood was one of the inspirations for the Headwaters Community
Housing Trust’s Bridger View Neighborhood.1 Our intention is to maintain this quality of life for
future generations.
Figure 3. A Tiny Porch
Concert on North Tracy
Avenue.
1Drone footage of the
Centennial Park Neighborhood
is featured at the :50 mark in
Bridger View’s Vision and
Values video.
5
Neighborhood Values
Common themes emerged from our core volunteer group discussions and direct engagement
with fellow Centennial Park neighbors.2
We are for:
1. Upholding the intent of the NCOD (Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) 38.340.010),
2. Respecting existing neighborhood character,
3. Retaining the current mix of housing types with a future emphasis on Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs),
4. Promoting and retaining naturally-occurring affordable housing for renters and
homeowners alike, and
5. Protecting mature vegetation and solar access.
Figure 4. Backyard of 820 North Tracy Avenue as seen from the alley. Welcoming backyards encourage social
interactions in the Centennial Park Neighborhood.
These values underpin the following “Vision Statement,” which incorporates our understanding
of neighbor concerns and desires – regardless of whether they are homeowners who live here,
renters, or property owners whose primary residence is elsewhere.
2A robust outreach effort was undertaken to gather signatures for the enclosed petition. See Appendix A.
6
Vision Statement
We desire a future that respects and harmonizes with existing, human-scale neighborhood
character – including people’s homes, some of which are historic structures – and solar access
for plant growth, human health, and energy.
Figure 5. Tree-lined streets are an
essential part of Centennial Park
Neighborhood’s character. Many
Centennial Park Neighbors are avid
gardeners and some have also
cultivated boulevards and alleys
with drought-resistant plant
varieties.
7
Current and Proposed Zoning
NENA contains several zoning designations to reflect its different land uses (i.e., Residential,
Community Business - Mixed, Light Manufacturing, Historical Mixed Use and Public Lands
Institutions) (Figure 6.)
Figure 6. Current zoning of the NENA Neighborhood shown in green overlay and adjacent Midtown Neighborhood
shown in grey overlay. Screenshot from https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=planning. Zoning
descriptions may be found in Bozeman Municode Division 38.300.
Currently, the Centennial Park Neighborhood is zoned R-4 (brown rectangle) immediately
bordering R-2 (orange) to the east and south, and R-3 (purple) to the south (Figure 7).
Proposed zoning demarcates Centennial Park, North Grand Fields, and the Senior Center as
Public Lands and Institutions (PLI; green backwards L-shape) within the original rectangle. The
remainder is zoned R-C (purple), immediately bordering R-A (yellow) to the east and south and
R-B (brown) to the south.
8
NORTH ↑
Figure 7. Current zoning (left) and proposed zoning (right). NCOD indicated by diagonal hatch marks.
In the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC), R-A and R-B are designated as Residential
Low (maximum dwelling units per building is 2 plus ADU = 3) and Residential Low-Medium
Density (maximum dwelling units per building = 8), respectively, whereas R-C is designated
Medium Density (maximum dwelling units per building = 24).
Three (3), 8 and 24 are widely varying numbers in this context. A stated goal in Bozeman’s
Growth Policy is, “Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed
areas over time.” (N-1.11, Page 290). By adjusting the zoning of the Centennial Park
Neighborhood parcel to R-A in the UDC update now, it will create more continuity and
predictability across a relatively localized area within the larger NENA neighborhood.
Furthermore, it can be argued that it was an oversight not to include North Tracy Avenue north
of West Peach Street as part of the adjacent historic district currently zoned R-2 to the south.
Page 82 of the “Bozeman Guidelines for Historic Preservation & the Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District,” amended as recently as 2015, discusses the North Tracy
Avenue Historic District ending at Peach Street. Yet Appendix D includes a historic photo of the
623 North Tracy residence located north of Peach (Figure 8). The Montana Cadastral states this
house was built in 1910 in “old style.” Additionally, another North Tracy home north of Peach
has credible information about its historic relevance (See the UDC-informed Lot Case Study on
Pages 22-23 in this proposal).
9
Figure 8. From
Appendix D of
“Bozeman
Guidelines for
Historic
Preservation &
the
Neighborhood
Conservation
Overlay
District.” This
home still
stands on what
is now the
southwest
corner of North
Tracy and
Cottonwood. It
is immediately
recognizable as
the original
structure
pictured here.
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
According to BMC 38.340.010, “The intent and purpose of the conservation district
designation is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other
elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential
neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas. New construction will be invited and
encouraged provided primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings
and further provided the design of such new space enhances and contributes to the
aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or
area. Contemporary design will be encouraged, provided it is in keeping with the
above-stated criteria, as an acknowledged fact of the continuing developmental pattern
of a dynamic, changing community.”
According to the Bendon Adams NCOD report compiled for the city in June 2019:
“The NCOD brings awareness to neighborhood context and character and historic
preservation.”
“Some of the existing zone districts located in the NCOD have allowed for
development over time that is not always characteristic of adopted historic
10
districts or non-historic neighborhoods. This disconnect between traditional
zoning practice and neighborhood character results in projects that may meet the
code (and the existing form and intensity standards) but are not always
responsive to the surrounding neighborhood, prompting frustration and distrust
toward infill development, especially within the NCOD.”
“Bozeman’s decision to adopt a Conservation Overlay District that includes the
areas between designated Historic Districts was a gutsy solution in 1991 that
made Bozeman a pioneer in preservation of neighborhood character, scale and
context. The result 27 years later is well preserved historic districts and
neighborhood character that supports a sense of place and a sense of pride for
the community.”
For reasons not fully understood, in the six years since the Bendon Adams report, the nearby
North Central development was approved by the City. As evidenced by the developer’s 3-D
model (Figure 9), the pattern of preserving neighborhood character that supports a sense of
place and pride was broken. We in the Centennial Park Neighborhood seek a different future –
one that is more aligned with the intent of the NCOD and Bendon Adams’ interpretation rather
than more recent interpretations by those who designed and/or approved North Central.
Figure 9. Photo of the
North Central
development model in
July 2022. Note the
size differential
between existing
homes (plain white
structures) compared
to proposed
multi-story buildings
(in color detail).
Addressing a basic need like housing must also consider public health. The scale of the built
environment has a profound effect on human health and psychology. It is paramount for
Bozeman to acknowledge these effects, especially in established neighborhoods. “Defining
different experiences, smaller scales, in harmony with the human scale produce
communication, warmth, closeness, and even contact in an urban environment.”3
3Harrouk, C. Psychology of Scale: People, Buildings and Cities. Arch Daily. November 25, 2020.
11
Problem Statement
Current (R-4) and proposed (R-C) zoning threaten the Centennial Park Neighborhood as we
know it.
Background
Many Bozeman residents do not have an intimate knowledge of zoning. In fact, many make
assumptions about zoning. For example, since R-1 equates to a single residence and R-2
equates to two households, it is natural to think that R-4 would equate to a quadplex. But it does
not. Indeed, it was not until the UDC update that many of us realized what R-4 zoning means –
a high-density designation with no limit on the number of units allowed except that restricted by
lot size.
Learning from the Past
While we understand the R-4 zoning designation has been in place for decades, it is
disproportional to what exists in the built environment of our neighborhood today. If you walk
from Rouse Avenue west towards Centennial Park or from Villard Street north to Tamarack
Street, you cannot tell that you are walking through different zoning districts.
NORTH ↑
Figure 10. Axonometric Google Earth view of a subsection of NENA and a small portion of the Midtown
Neighborhood to the west. [Note: The green field directly west of Grand (softball) Fields has since been developed
into seven four-story buildings called the Westlake Heights Apartment Complex.]. This context illustrates that current
residential zoning differences are imperceptible west of North Rouse Avenue and north of West Villard Street.
12
Proposed R-C zoning – even though described as “medium density” allows up to 24 units. This
relatively high number of units would perpetuate, and perhaps exacerbate, the disparity of
development allowances between our zoned parcel and immediately adjacent parcels to the
east and south. Also of great concern are current and proposed height allowances to
accommodate a higher density of units. This is already a reality for our fellow NENA neighbors
in HomeBase’s North Central project with new buildings (e.g., The Henry, and Ives) towering
over their homes.
The City proposes to automatically convert R-4 parcels to R-C. Bendon Adams recommended a
survey of existing historic buildings/districts. We ask that you consider the uniqueness of our
neighborhood, what is at stake, and hear our collective voice for protecting its character.
Additionally, an automatic application of R-C risks eliminating the mix of housing types the City
indicates it values. From Bozeman’s Community Plan 2020 (AKA The Growth Plan):
“Theme 2: Bozeman is indeed a city of unique neighborhoods. From the traditional
neighborhoods north and south of Bozeman’s downtown, to the developments of more
recent times, Bozeman’s neighborhoods are as diverse as the periods of time in which
they were built. This eclectic mix of housing opportunities within differing geographic
parts of town helps define who we are, where we came from, and where we’re going. [...]
The City supports policies that maintain and build neighborhoods designed to provide
equitable access to amenities and opportunities for all. Housing type diversity within
neighborhoods helps ensure community benefits are available to households of different
size, income, and age. Mixed neighborhoods can help provide the density of people
needed to support nearby commercial activities.”
Automatic conversion of this R-4 parcel to R-C does not take into account recent nearby
building trends of high density units of both luxury and affordable varieties. According to City
planning documents and real estate promotional materials, we calculated that 361 new
apartment units will soon be populated in The Henry, The Ives, and Westlake Heights
apartments - all within 965 feet of the Centennial Park Neighborhood parcel (measured using
the City’s GIS Viewer distance tool). Furthermore, being zoned R-C when adjacent parcels are
proposed to be low density R-A and low-medium density R-B, could put an unwelcome target on
our parcel for re-development – displacing existing property owners and renters. Plus, newer,
larger construction, by default, tends to remove affordability.
Doing Nothing is Not an Option
Montana Good Life Real Estate Brokers describe the Imes Addition as, “a charming
subdivision nestled in the heart of Bozeman, Montana. Located in Gallatin County, Imes
Addition is a sought-after neighborhood that offers a perfect blend of natural beauty and
urban convenience. Imes Addition is known for its picturesque streets lined with
well-maintained homes and lush greenery. The neighborhood boasts a variety of
13
architectural styles, ranging from traditional to modern, ensuring there is something to
suit every taste.”
Currently only one property is on the market according to zillow.com accessed on 4/6/25.
However, if homeowners decide to sell and adjacent lots are aggregated, it could result in
buildings out of scale with the existing neighborhood. Centennial Park Neighbors seek to avoid
this fate by adjusting our zoning through the UDC process as we have been invited to do. Most
importantly, the majority of homeowners in this neighborhood do not want to be zoned R-C.
Proposed Solution
We request the City assign a different zoning to our parcel. Specifically, R-4 to R-2 (or
R-C to R-A) as part of the UDC Update.
We present this proposal from a proactive and collaborative mindset with the benefit of “lessons
learned.” Centennial Park Neighbors desire to have new development that respects the current
scale and housing types in our neighborhood. The notion of maintaining neighborhood character
and scale is not unique. It is well addressed in the NCOD Guidelines (2015), Bendon Adams
report (2019), Peoria and Church report (2020), and Cowan et al. (2022). We value the history
of our neighborhood, support affordable housing options, and desire the preservation of existing
character.
With the exception of the addition of the Public Land Institutions (PLI) designation, our collective
belief and concern is that our currently R-4 zoned parcel is at risk – as described in the Problem
Statement on Page 12. Designating this parcel to R-2 (proposed R-A) provides the best
opportunity to protect the quality of life we now enjoy and maintain the current mix of housing
types (single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, apartment buildings, ADUs, as well as all other
existing multi-family structures). Unobtrusive ADUs (which contribute to “invisible infill”) are our
best tool to preserve tangible ties to this area’s landmark built and natural heritage.
Identifying as part of NENA, the Centennial Park neighbors want to associate with adjacent R-2
and R-3 parcels proposed to become R-A or R-B south of Peach Street and east of North
Bozeman Avenue. Currently these adjacent R-2, R-3, R-4 zoning parcels all “feel” the same
(Figure 10). Indeed this zoning change would be in alignment with Bozeman Community Plan
2020 goal N-4.1: “Continue to recognize and honor the unique history, neighborhoods,
neighborhood character, and buildings that contribute to Bozeman’s sense of place
through programs and policy led by both City and community efforts.”
Our proposal acknowledges some existing apartment complexes (such as the income-restricted
Bridger Heights development and The Marian Apartments on Tamarack Street) may need to be
grandfathered as legally compliant. Additionally, we are aware that R-A would allow for three
units maximum density per lot (two units plus an ADU). Additionally, we understand real estate
market realities are unpredictable.
14
Our neighborhood can do its part to accommodate the growing population of Bozeman in ways
that also maintain the character of the neighborhood and set a norm for future placemaking,
such as through ADUs and other human-scale structures.4
Supporting Facts and Documentation
Our zone amendment request through the current UDC process is not unprecedented. Other
site-specific zoning changes have already occurred in the Proposed UDC, including The Cairns
on North Grand Avenue and an area of Broadway Avenue.
Over the course of 2024-25, a core group of a dozen Centennial Park neighbors worked
together to organize and conduct a neighborhood-wide outreach effort. We ground truthed the
Montana Cadastral, counting 123 properties within our R-4 zoned parcel (not including the
Bridger Heights and The Marian Apartment complexes).
We created a flyer with information from the CIty’s Engage Bozeman UDC page (Figure 11).
Figure 11. To
inform and
engage the
owners of
properties in
our parcel,
flyers were
either handed
to the resident,
left on the
porch, or
mailed via US
postal service.
We collected physical signatures for our petition as well as signature consent via email/text:
“We the undersigned homeowners/residents support that the Centennial Park
neighborhood be designated R-A instead of R-C in the Unified Development Code.”
4Burke, S. Placemaking and the Human Scale City. Project for Public Spaces. January 11, 2016.
15
We successfully obtained at least one property/homeowner signature for 66 of the 123
properties in the Centennial Park Neighborhood parcel. 66/123 = accounts for 54% of
properties; Notably, this is 3% more than is required for a formal Zone Map Amendment
Process.
Appendix B lists 91 unique property/homeowner signees. 91-66 = 25. The additional 25 signees
are accounted for by the fact that some properties have multiple owners.
Three property owners verbalized hesitancy to sign our petition. One opined that R-B would be
a better fit (which we agree would be a great improvement over R-C), one who lives across from
the Westlake Heights Apartment complex expressed overwhelm and uncertainty about her
future there, and the third expressed apathy and simply didn’t want to be involved.
This is not meant to be construed as an exhaustive petition-gathering effort. Despite knocking
on doors, the US postal service, and/or email/texts we did not hear back from numerous
individual property owners. If we were successful in making contact, this could theoretically raise
property/homeowner petition support significantly.
We obtained an additional 57
“resident” signatures. These
include renters within our parcel
as well as residents from the
greater NENA Neighborhood or
elsewhere in the City who
opportunistically signed our
petition.
Find petition documentation in
Appendix B. Typed version is
available upon request.
Figure 12. Growing up in the Centennial
Park Neighborhood, 2023.
16
Supporting Research
Neighborhood Character
In 2022, “Investigating Neighborhood Character in the Northeast Neighborhood of Bozeman,
MT”4 was published as a culmination of research between NENA, city of Bozeman staff, and
Montana State University School of Architecture. The Centennial Park Neighborhood lies within
what the authors describe as the Northwest Quadrant of the Northeast Neighborhood.
The report states, “The data collected here may be used
by the city of Bozeman and NENA to develop
neighborhood planning tools.” Therefore, we point to, and
draw from, this body of knowledge in this zone amendment
proposal.
Page 98 discusses the benefits of Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs). “In November 2021, the City Commission voted
to relax ADU regulations by allowing 600 square foot
structures to be used for long-term rentals. This
relaxation of the rules may make it even easier to build
more ADUs. These ADUs can provide useful hidden
density and variety in housing types, allowing more people to live near downtown in
smaller less expensive homes. They can also be a source of income for homeowners.”
We see this 2021 code relaxation as the most fitting way to 1) promote and retain comparatively
affordable housing options, 2) increase density in our neighborhood that is appropriately scaled
and integrated into an alley-based architecture and culture we now appreciate, and 3) is
compatible with the intention of the NCOD. In short, ADUs can be a good fit for the scale of the
existing neighborhood housing profile. Furthermore, an increase in allowable ADU size could
give residents even more flexibility to add “invisible infill”/gentle density to our neighborhood.
Pages 138-139 cites “Community Character” as the aspect most NENA survey respondents
want to preserve, followed by “Neighborhood Aesthetics,” and “Housing Options.” We
agree these aspects are essential to protect as we move into the future reality of growth and
change across our city. On Page 140, in addition to concerns about “Parking and Traffic,”
“Affordability” ranked next highest as a concern.
We agree with the assessment by Cowan et al. (2022) on Page 158 that NENA research
participants (including those of us in the Northwest Quadrant) are not “Anti-development” but
rather, “Pro-Neighbor Character.” We echo the values of affordability for renters and
homeowners, alike, and the social interaction afforded by our current neighborhood layout with
sidewalks, porches, alleys, yards and, of course, Centennial Park.
4By Dr. Susanne Cowan, Dr. Sarah P. Church, Brennan Radulski, Ryen Dalvit, Kip Giddings, Jack Rosenthal, & Joe Peoria.
Copyright August 2022 Montana State University School of Architecture.
17
Beginning on Page 160, the authors provide potential next steps for the city of Bozeman to
consider:
1. “Utilize small-scale neighborhood plans to reflect neighborhood values and
character […] to either fit with existing settlement plans or alleviate abrupt
transitions between lots and blocks.”
2. “Incentivize development that protects the current urban form of the Northeast
neighborhood. To support the neighborhood, the city could find ways to preserve
the neighborhood’s urban form. One approach could be the use of zoning or a
points system to incentivize developers to match the character of the
neighborhood, as well as considering grants to preserve small-scale historical
homes and buildings.”
3. “Explore ways to ensure new development is in scale with the existing
neighborhood. Many of the complaints we saw in our data surrounded new
development seeming out of scale with the existing development pattern. This
includes lot coverage, lot setbacks, and height. Primarily, concerns arose with
new developments that took up all allowable lot coverage and allowable heights
that may then have adverse effects on neighboring homes."
4. “Support new developments while keeping the cost of living low for current and
future residents. The city should find ways to support new development while
keeping the cost of living low for current and future residents. As many
respondents and interviewees described, the past cost of living of their
neighborhood has allowed for the neighborhood to host people of diverse ages
and incomes, which contributes to the community character of the neighborhood.
The city is well aware of the affordable housing crisis. The city’s housing code
audit revealed several avenues to reduce housing costs and implement more
housing units. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are one approach to affordable
infill housing that could be utilized (see Villa n.d. for ADU funding and support
resources). Although development is necessary to allow Bozeman to adapt to a
growing population, preventing a rising cost of living for current residents must
also be managed to protect the Northeast neighborhood character.”
5. “Further involve the community in neighborhood growth and development
planning [...] Our research put voice to an underlying feeling of distrust with
elected officials and government employees. This concern is important to
recognize, as whatever the city attempts to implement may be met with
skepticism. The city has a robust neighborhoods program and has implemented
Engage Bozeman, which helps with transparency and visibility of planning
processes. The city of Bozeman could explore codifying neighborhood
associations as being informed or having a decision-making voice in development
[...], implementing neighborhood representation through the Council system [...]”
18
Cowan et al.’s “potential next steps” listed above would directly support our petition to amend
the zoning of our parcel from R-4 to R-2 – which would correlate to our parcel becoming R-A
instead of R-C as currently proposed in the UDC Update.
Preceding Cowan et al. (2022) was the work of Peoria and Church (2020).5 They analyzed
PhotoVoicesNE (a community engagement tool) alongside the City’s Community Plan, Strategic
Plan, and the UDC. Peoria and Church’s recommendations aim “to help preserve the
Northeast Neighborhood’s existing character, and encourage new development to
enhance and contribute to this character as this neighborhood continues to grow.” They
specifically recommend use of neighborhood-specific zones among other ideas.
Figure 13. Mature vegetation, craftsman-style homes, and a culture of caring add greatly to the appeal of the
Centennial Park Neighborhood (a subarea of NENA) within the NCOD. This home is two doors south of the historic
home pictured in Figure 8.
5Peoria, J. and S. Church (2020). Integrating Neighborhood Voice into Policies, Plans, and Regulations: A Synthesis of Bozeman’s
Northeast Neighborhood Vision and City Policy.
19
Centennial Park Neighborhood Inventory Data
A wide range of architectural styles is represented in the Northwest Quadrant of NENA (of which
Centennial Park Neighborhood is a part) including Victorian, Craftsman, Log Cabin, Ranch
House, Minimalist Traditional, Contemporary, and Neotraditional (Cowan et al. 2022). Sixteen
(16) properties within the Centennial Park Neighborhood have ADUs and 13 are multi-family
buildings (Unpublished data).
Cowan et al. (2022) includes a housing story height map illustrating the number of stories for
residential buildings (Figure 14). Note that over 50% of homes in the Centennial Park
Neighborhood are single story and none are three (3) or more stories.
Figure 14. Excerpted from Page 90 of Cowan et al. (2022). Inventory map prepared by Kipton Giddings and Jack
Rosenthal. Only the Centennial Park Neighborhood extent is shown here. Note that only the western boundary of
NENA is depicted in this excerpted version and the B-3 Zoning Designation is not applicable to our neighborhood.
20
UDC-Informed Block Case Study
Rheinschild and Cowan (2024) conducted a Zoning + Density Study within the context of
Bozeman’s UDC. They created useful visualizations of three long-established Bozeman blocks,
including one within the Centennial Park Neighborhood subarea of NENA (Figure 15).
The drawn-to-scale elevation views in the image below provide a useful comparison not
available in the City of Bozeman’s proposed UDC materials. The elevation image on the right
depicts a reasonable expectation of future growth for the existing neighborhood if it were to be
zoned R-2. Whereas, the elevation image on the left depicts a stark contrast between existing
and potential future structures that would be allowed if it were to remain R-4.
Figure 15. From Rheinschild and Cowan (2024) with permission of the School of Architecture, Montana State
University. Comparison of what could be developed in our neighborhood under R-4 (proposed to become R-C)
versus R-2 (proposed to become R-A) zoning.
21
No matter how it is described R-4 (high-density) or R-C (medium density), neither zoning is
appropriate for our existing neighborhood. The axonometric and elevation views in Figure 15
reinforce the argument that R-4/R-C do not represent a gradual and predictable increase in
density but instead could induce a drastic change to our neighborhood.
UDC-Informed Lot Case Study
The current owner and resident of 605 North Tracy
Avenue possesses the original deed for said property in
which the first line reads, “The United States of America
(Grantor), U.S. Agricultural College Patent to F. F. Fridley
(Grantee) date of record Jan. 22, 1872.”
According to an article in the Livingston Enterprise, this
historic home of pioneer F.F. Fridley was the third house to
be built in Bozeman–and the first with wood floors.
(Figures 16 and 17).
FIgure 16. Article from the Livingston Enterprise about F.F. Fridley’s
North Tracy Bozeman Home.
Figure 17. Current street view of 605 North Tracy Avenue, Bozeman. House on left.
22
Although the 605 North Tracy two-story home is not registered on the National Register of
Historic Places, it still undeniably adds historic character to this neighborhood. In contrast, a
four-story building allowed with R-C zoning, would be out of character–and scale for this
neighborhood.
To demonstrate this, the owner enlisted the help of a licensed architect. Together they drew to
scale what would be allowed under proposed R-C zoning versus what currently exists on this lot
(Figures 18 and 19).
Figure 18. Existing versus allowable footprint under R-C zoning. All of the open space and mature trees on this site
would be lost along with their aesthetics and ecosystem services they provide.
23
Figure 19. Existing versus allowable mass and height under R-C zoning. This drawing does not account for the
Affordable Housing Ordinance incentive of an additional floor.
The owner reached out to the City Planning Department to verify the accuracy of the drawings.
Email conversations over several weeks concluded they are accurate. New information was
learned from this exchange. According to a Bozeman City planner, “R-C also has a minimum
density requirement of 18 dwellings per acre for any new development (existing structures will
not be required to increase density). Therefore, a minimum of three dwelling units would have to
be provided on this lot if a teardown and rebuild was proposed.” Such a requirement would likely
have dual impacts, 1) to the existing character of the neighborhood and 2) a potential added
financial strain on property owners seeking to re-develop their properties.
24
Conclusion
We, the authors of this proposal, appreciate your attention and consideration to our zone
amendment proposal request. We believe we have thoroughly explained our position, rationale,
and justification for this request from R-4 to R-2, in order to become R-A.
This collaborative neighborhood organizing effort has been rewarding and the outpouring of
support from within and beyond our parcel boundaries has been affirming. Knocking on doors,
conversations at the park, and engaging with our neighbors was a positive byproduct of an
otherwise stressful UDC Update experience.
We thank the CIty for its commitment to re-engage the public about the UDC and for affording
us this opportunity for you to consider our proposal within the context of the UDC Update.
Figure 20. This two-story home site
was re-developed in the past decade
from a single-family residence to three
dwelling units (a duplex and a
carriage house) that is compatible
with the character of the Centennial
Park Neighborhood.
Next Steps
We believe we have done our
due diligence in putting forth
this proposal. However, we ask
that the City guide us through
any other necessary steps in
order to have our zoning
change request approved. We
are also open to exploring
alternatives (i.e., alternate zoning, Landmark status, other creative options that meet the needs
of existing Centennial Park neighbors and the City as a whole) that aim to achieve the outcome
as stated in our Vision Statement on Page 7.
In addition to submitting this written version, we are willing and plan to orally present our
proposal at both a Community Development Advisory Board Meeting and City Commission
Meeting. If any arrangements need to be made, including the ability for us to present visual aids,
you may reach us at centennialparkneighbors@gmail.com.
25
Appendix A
Outreach/Engagement Timeline
In response to the City’s proposed UDC Update, Bozeman residents, including Centennial Park
neighbors, necessarily became more informed and engaged. This is a timeline of our journey
culminating in this proposal and petition and no less than 200 volunteer hours.
October 2022 - Individuals attend the Code Connect meeting; alert neighbors of the upcoming
UDC Update.
September 2023 - Individuals publicly express uncertainty about the UDC Update.
October 2023 - Core group (of Centennial Park neighbor volunteers) arrange a Teams Meeting
with Planner Chris Saunders to better understand R-4 zoning and the Zone Map Amendment
(ZMA) process. Sigh of relief when UDC is paused.
April 2024 - Core group does preliminary assessment of wider neighbor opinion regarding
R-4/R-C zoning. Small sample size indicates there would be at least 51% support required for a
ZMA.
August 2024 - Core group addresses NENA membership about potential ZMA effort during
summer potluck at the Beall Park Community Center. There is broad support from the greater
NENA community, including a suggestion to try to request a different zoning within the UDC
Update process instead of the costly ZMA process.
September 2024 - Individuals submit public comments for the City Commission UDC Work
Session. Core neighbors host 1st UDC R-4 Neighborhood Strategy Meeting at the Bozeman
Safety Center. We are reminded of the “Investigating (NENA) Neighborhood Character” book by
Cowan et al. (2022).
October 2024 - Core group sets up centennialparkneighbors@gmail.com, begins to design an
informational flyer (Figure 11), and hosts 2nd UDC Neighborhood Strategy Meeting at the
Bozeman Safety Center. NENA newsletter publishes core group intent to downzone, requesting
NENA member support.
November 2024 - Core group begins gauging support for our zoning change petition.
December 2024 - Individuals attend UDC Open Houses. More research is done on what R-C
and R-A would allow.
January 2025 - Core group hosts 3rd UDC Neighborhood Strategy Meeting at a neighbor’s
house. Members are assigned blocks (Figure 2) and use the Montana Cadastral to identify
property owners. Money is spent on flyers and postage. Core group members knock on doors,
mail flyers, and/or text or call neighbors (owners and renters). The mission: To inform and listen
26
to neighbors and gather physical signatures for our zoning change petition. Core group presents
at the NENA-hosted UDC Roundtable at the Bozeman Safety Center. Mayor Cunningham,
Commissioner Fischer, and other City officials learned firsthand of our plan to submit this zoning
change petition.
February 2025 - Core group learns (via February 4th City Commission Meeting) that
Community Development Director Erin George endorses the idea of neighbors submitting
zoning change proposals as a UDC-related public comment, thereby avoiding the need for a
ZMA proposal. Core group hosts 4th UDC Neighborhood Strategy Meeting at a neighbor’s
house.
March-April 2025 - Core group wraps up outreach effort, tallies petition support, and drafts this
proposal.
27
Appendix B
Record of Centennial Park Neighborhood Petition Signatures
Total = 148 individual signees
1. Unique Home/Property Owner Signees (n=91)
Most signed a copy of the petition in person. Some consented to “sign” via email to
centennialparkneighbors@gmail.com or text to a core group member. Signees who signed more than
once because they own more than one property were counted only once as a unique signee. Note: One
homeowner signed the “resident” version so was added to this homeowner list.
28
29
Whitney Lonsdale (via emai) 721 N. Grand
Jed Weingarten (via same email message) 721 N. Grand
James Menkol (via email) 724 N. 3rd
Ada Guisti (signed Resident version) 622 N. Grand
Joseph Wojciechowski (via text) 211 W. Peach
Emily Budziak (via email) 616 N. Willson
Harold Wesley (via email) 719 N. Grand
KK Barton (via email) 102 N Cottonwood
Kelby Barton (via same email) 102 N Cottonwood
Merry Knight (verbal) 606 N Black
30
- Continued -
31
2. Residents - includes renters living within the Centennial Park Neighborhood parcel as well as
others who opportunistically signed our petition (n=57)
Most signed a copy of the petition in person. Some consented to “sign” via email to
centennialparkneighbors@gmail.com or text to a core group member. Note: One homeowner who signed
the “resident” version was added to the homeowner list and, thus, is not counted here.
32
33
Pamela Hainsworth pamela.hainsworth@gmail.com
Amy Hoitsma aok@mcn.net
Jane Jielinski 433 N. Tracy
Jack Jielinski 433 N. Tracy
Zehra Osman zosman534@gmail.com
34
Appendix C
Additional Snapshots from the Centennial Park Neighborhood
Public Lands Institutions:
35
36
Views from the corner of North
Grand Avenue and Cottonwood
Street:
37
Memorable moments from the summer of 2020:
Watching the Bridger
Fire from Centennial
Park Hill.
Witnessing a family of
Swainson’s hawks
successfully nest and
raise fledglings in the
spruce tree pictured
below. Swainson’s
hawks are typically
found in semi-open
habitats.
38