HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-25 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - Community Development Board 4_21_25, Landmark Program reviewFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Cc:Jennifer Madgic
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Community Development Board 4/21/25, Landmark Program review
Date:Monday, April 21, 2025 11:15:54 AM
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.
Dear Community Development Board Members-
Tonight, I ask you to support the HPAB amendment to remove the review of NCODboundaries from Phase 2 of this Landmark Program. The report states that the NCOD will not
be done away with but shrinking the boundaries IS doing away with the NCOD in thoseparticular areas.
The process to manipulate the NCOD boundaries and ultimately, the functioning of the NCOD
should have its own public hearing with proper notice given to the affected and surroundingresidents complete with a public comment period and public process as it would essentially
change an overlying zoning district. Changes to the NCOD boundary should not be hidden inthe Landmark Program.
As I reviewed the video of the Landmark Presentation at last week's HPAB board, I was
disturbed by the level of detail Director George and Historic Preservation Officer Rosenbergproposed for a change in the NCOD boundary.
Director George and consultant Burke aren't just suggesting the NCOD boundary be discussed- they are recommending very specific changes without proper public notification. They
suggest extensive erosion of the NCOD boundary on all sides. This includes the CityCommission's N. 7th direction, but it also includes the suggestion to remove sections of N.
5th, the Marwyn-Lindley neighborhood, the Lindley Center, and sections of Bogert ParkNeighborhood from the NCOD. Why? As far as I can tell, they were not directed to take these
additional specific steps. I think Director George and HP Officer Rosenberg overreached andtheir additional suggestions are very concerning and inappropriate at this time. Intentional or
not, I think this is an example of staff bias and potential spot zoning that needs to be kept incheck with proper public notice, transparency, and procedure.
I agree with the HPAB's amendment for the reasons that HP Board member Alyson Brekke
mentioned- that by including the discussion of the NCOD boundary and the proposed newNCOD map in Phase 2, it gives the appearance of approving these proposed boundaries at this
time and I urge you to support the HPAB amendment to remove the NCOD boundarydiscussion from Phase 2. Discussions about the NCOD in general should come before any
boundary additions or dissolutions.
Additionally, please consider advocating for the following:
1. Recommendation of 1-2 full time preservation officers. I think we need at least one fundedfull time position. I also think it is a conflict of interest for our 1/2 time preservation officer to
oversee NCOD guidelines while also acting as a 1/2 time planner whose job it is to helpapplicants achieve adequacy.
2. Recommendation of a budget line to help support residents paying for historic
documentation forms and application fees.
3. Recommendation of a public discussion in Phase 2 to clarify which zoning takes priority-the overlay district such as NCOD or the underlying district. When the NCOD was
developed, the intention was protective and therefore was adding restrictions to what couldand couldn't be done within its boundaries, especially when the NCOD overlays several
different zoning districts.
4. Recommendation that the NCOD term "guidelines" be changed to "standards" andclarifying text be added to the UDC that these standards are as compulsory as other city codes.
This should help alleviate staff confusion over their interpretation and align their interpretationwith the goals of the NCOD.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and consider them in your
recommendations tonight.
Sincerely,
Marcia Kaveney