HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-24-25 Public Comment - A. Kociolek - Re_ Bon Ton Zoning & the UDCFrom:Dangie Krza-Kociolek
To:Jim Webster
Cc:Terry Cunningham; Joey Morrison; Jennifer Madgic; Douglas Fischer; Emma Bode; Erin George; Bozeman Public
Comment; Alison Sweeney; lindasemones@hotmail.com; elizabeth.darrow@gmail.com; Jonathan Pytka; Jenni
Lowe; Marylou Osman; Jeanne Carter; Betsy Gaines Quammen; David Quammen; Bruce Comer; Sarah Helfrich;
Stephen B. Carlson; Laura Fedro; Valerie Hemingway; Sue MacGrath; Anja Lincke; Beth MacFawn; Jane Mangold
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Re: Bon Ton Zoning & the UDC
Date:Tuesday, June 24, 2025 9:16:01 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.
Thank you, Jim, for keeping the lines of communication open between our neighborhoods.Thank you also for sharing your insights on pertinent points that affect the Bozeman
community as a whole.
I’ve added Beth MacFawn and Jane & Kris Mangold since they led the commissioner-focusedCentennial Park walking tours.
Best to all,
Angie Kociolek
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 24, 2025, at 7:44 AM, Jim Webster <jwebster587@gmail.com> wrote:
To All,
We’ve had some productive conversations in the last few weeks as four
commissioners and three members of Forward Montana (FM) have toured theBon Ton (BT) on three different occasions. I have also toured Centennial with
Angie Kociolek one-on-one, and that provided me with great context as well. Ialso understand that some on the commission had a chance to tour with Angie too,
this past Friday. This has hopefully provided solid context for all, as the cityproceeds with deliberations re zoning, within the confines of the overall UDC.
After meeting yesterday with FM, it struck me later in the day, that one aspectof the zoning conundrum is pretty straightforward and this conversation had
actually started with the two groups of two commissioners that toured the BT. I’llrefer to this option as “RA and-a-half” as discussed with Commissioner Fischer
while on the walk and included Commissioner Bode in the discussion on ourporch that followed. There appears to be a missing option in the zoning
discussion that would take the allowable number of units in a structure up to (saypossibly) four and an ADU in back could take it to five units. The suggestion
here would call for the existing structure to not be significantly changed, so as notto upset the delicate balance of Mass, Structure and Transition, which you all are
addressing tonight. What follows next, is an example of why “RA and-a-half” isworth consideration:
Let’s take our house at 311 South Third Ave. All five on the commission haveseen it. If my wife and I were to create more housing options out of this property
that is a single-family home (built in 1903) with an ADU in back (built 100 yearslater in 2003). which we would consider, would probably yield some new rental
units that would not be as expensive to create as new construction. Why? becausethere is a structure already in existence that is in solid shape that does not have to
be built from the ground up. Contrast this with someone buying our house(market forces suggest it won’t be cheap) and then scraping the structure (more
cost there, plus more material going to the landfill that creates new [perhapsunintended], conservation and sustainability issues).
After all this, now one is looking at new construction costs (whether it be for 4-5 units, the “RA and-a-half” option. 8 units in an RB zone option or 24 units in a
RC zone option. Present market forces suggest that these new construction costson a per-unit basis, would most likely be quite a bit higher than the per unit cost
of the remodel of our house. Higher costs mean higher rents, that concept seemspretty straightforward. Is this what people want? We don’t think so, so we
should be thoughtful in weighing these choices. NOAH, (Naturally OccurringAffordable Housing is already present and we ignore this fact at our own peril!
Adaptive reuse of a single-family home into a multi-unit rental provides:1. “Gentle infill”
2. Which then contributes to the retention of the character and historic designationof the neighborhood.
3. Which then contributes to better stewardship/sustainability of the “as built”environment through adaptive reuse of various neighborhood structures.
4. Potentially lower rents result as another positive outcome. We would invite staff and commission to discuss this aspect as the “rubber
meets the road,” as we cannot simply “will away,” the market forces at work! Thank you all for your consideration and we all look forward to an outcome that
yields “the greatest good for the greatest possible number!”
As always, I represent myself here and not the Historic Preservation AdvisoryBoard, of which I (Jim), am a member.
All Best,
Jim & Valerie Webster